Revisional bariatric surgery: who, what, where, and when?

Efficacy and Safety of GLP- 1 Receptor Agonists in the Management of Weight Recurrence or Suboptimal Clinical Response after Undergoing Metabolic Bariatric Surgeries: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a pressing requirement to formulate innovative approaches for addressing inadequate weight loss or recurrence in individuals following metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS). Glucagon-like peptide- 1 (GLP- 1) analogues such as liraglutide and semaglutide have been formulated for treating type 2 diabetes or managing obesity. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to pool the results from all available studies on GLP- 1 agonists to assess the efficacy of these drugs in weight recurrence or suboptimal clinical response of patients who underwent MBS.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception till October 2024 for articles that fulfil our eligibility to be included in the systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the use of GLP- 1 agonists in the management of weight recurrence or suboptimal clinical response in patients who underwent MBS. The search strategy was as follows: "Liraglutide" OR "Semaglutide" OR "Tirzepatide" OR "GLP- 1" OR "Glucagon like peptide" AND "Weight" AND "Bariatric" OR "Sleeve" OR "Banding" OR "Roux-en-Y bypass. We used the mean difference (MD) to compare between continuous variables at a confidence interval (CI) of 95%, and p-value of 0.05.

RESULTS

The use of GLP- 1 agonists (liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide) was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the weight of the included patients showing an overall MD = 8.07 kg (95%CI: 5.5, 10.64, p < 0.00001) and I2 = 44%, p = 0.04. Moreover, these drugs (liraglutide, and semaglutide) showed significantly reduced body mass index (BMI) after treatment with overall MD = 4.42 kg/m2 (95%CI: 3.42, 5.42, p < 0.00001), and I2 = 67%, p = 0.0005. Compared with control group, the use of GLP- 1 agonists was associated with reduced weight with MD = - 9.19% (95%CI: - 10.81, - 7.58, p < 0.00001) and I2 = 0%. However, no difference was observed between both groups regarding BMI change with MD = - 1.97% (95%CI: - 4.65, 0.71, p = 0.15).

CONCLUSION

GLP- 1 agonists such as liraglutide and semaglutide effectively lower body weight and BMI in patients who suffer from weight recurrence or suboptimal clinical response after undergoing MBS. However, future studies are still warranted to investigate the most appropriate protocols for management.

Experiencing Complications After Metabolic and Bariatric Surgeries is a Risk Factor for Postoperative Emergency Department Admissions: a Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Emergency department admissions significantly burden hospital staff and countries' health system. Studies are encouraged for effective and correct utilization of emergency departments. Rational management of obesity-related medical problems and postoperative complications may reduce emergency department visits. This study aimed to determine the rates, characteristics, and antecedents of emergency room admissions after metabolic and bariatric surgeries (MBSs) performed in our hospital. According to our hypothesis, experiencing postoperative complications is the most common reason for emergency department admissions.

METHODS

The study was designed as a single-center, retrospective, cohort study. Metabolic and bariatric surgeries performed in our hospital between June 2021 and June 2023 were evaluated. Clavien Dindo Classification was used to classify complications. The reasons for emergency department admissions, re-hospitalization and surgical requirements, time relationships, and possible antecedents were examined in stages.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients were evaluated in the study. The average follow-up period was found to be 609.63 ± 222.89. The emergency department admission rate following MBSs was found to be 31%, and the admission rate within the first month was 7.8%. The major complication rate following MBSs was 4.6%. Experiencing complications was the most important antecedent for admissions 1 month postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with complications after MBS, the discharge decision should be provided with stricter controls, and outpatient clinic controls should be planned more frequently. Providing training to patients on managing complications should be considered as a strategy that may reduce the number of emergency department visits.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12624000810516.

Reversal of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: A Multi-Centric Analysis of Indications, Techniques, and Surgical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass may present long-term complications that require revisional surgery or even reversal to normal anatomy. Data on the indications, surgical technique, and outcomes of RYGB reversal remain scarce.

METHODS

We identified 48 cases of RYGB reversals with complete 90-day follow-up within a multi-centric international retrospective database of elective secondary bariatric surgery. The operations were performed between 2010 and 2024 in high-volume referral centers in Europe and USA. Data were collected on body weight, associated diseases, and on surgical outcomes up to 1-year postoperatively.

RESULTS

Patients were mainly female (81.3%) with a median age of 50 years (IQR 39-56). RYGB reversal was performed 7 years (median) after primary RYGB in patients with a BMI of 23.9 kg/m2 (IQR 20-27). Half of the patients underwent at least 1 bariatric revision before the reversal. Main indications for reversal were dumping syndrome (33.3%), excessive weight loss (29.2%), marginal ulcer (14.6%), malabsorption (12.5%), and abdominal pain (10.4%). Rate of conversion to open surgery was 8.3%, and the postoperative complications during the first year reached 50%, including 31.3% Clavien-Dindo grade I-II, 16.7% grade III-IV complications, and one death. At 1 year, the mean BMI of the cohort increased by 18% to 28.25 kg/m2; only 1 patient reached pre-RYGB BMI.

CONCLUSION

Although RYGB is a theoretically reversible procedure, normal anatomy is re-established only in selected cases which are refractory to medical therapy and often also to revisional bariatric surgery. RYGB reversals entail high morbidity, while the extent of recurrent weight gain at 1-year post-reversal seems to allow patients to remain below the threshold of severe obesity.

Primary, revisional, and endoscopic bariatric surgery: a narrative review of abdominal emergency management for general surgeons

Minimally invasive approaches like endoscopic, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery have revolutionized bariatric and metabolic surgery (MBS). Despite the safety of MBS in specialized centers, acute complications requiring emergency treatment may occur and present challenges for general surgeons, especially in community hospitals. This is further complicated by the rising popularity of bariatric surgery tourism and the increasing diversity of bariatric surgical techniques. This paper provides an updated review of the management of acute abdominal complications after minimally invasive MBS, intending to guide general surgeons in managing these patients, especially in emergency settings where specialized bariatric care may not be readily available.

Adjuvant Glucose-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Therapy for Suboptimal Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review

Addressing suboptimal weight loss post-bariatric surgery poses a challenge. While glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) show promise in managing obesity, their role as an adjuvant treatment after bariatric surgery remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic literature review focused on the efficacy and safety of GLP1-RA in bariatric surgery patients with insufficient weight loss or distant weight regain. Our literature search identified 1167 articles, with 10 (involving 594 patients) meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria for detailed review. GLP1-RA therapy resulted in 5 to 17% weight loss over 6 to 12 months, with 10-50% experiencing non-severe side effects like nausea. Overall, GLP1-RA emerges as an effective adjuvant therapy for patients experiencing inadequate weight loss or regain after bariatric surgery, offering a viable alternative to revision surgery.

Five-year outcomes of revisional bariatric surgery: gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy or to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery after an index adjustable gastric band (AGB) may be indicated to remedy weight relapse or band-related complications. We examined outcomes five years following revision from AGB to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (AGB-LSG) or to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (AGB-RYGB).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review to identify patients (men and women, age 18-80) who underwent one revisional bariatric procedure with AGB as the index procedure at two medical centers in our healthcare system between January 2012 and February 2017. We only included patients with a pre-revision BMI > 30 kg/m2 for whom 5-year follow-up data were available. We compared 5-year weight loss and remission of comorbidities in patients undergoing AGB-LSG and AGB-RYGB conversion.

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients met inclusion criteria (65 AGB-LSG, 49 AGB-RYGB). At 5-year post-revision, percent total weight loss (3.4% vs 19.9%; p < 0.001), percent excess weight loss (7.0% vs 50.8%; p < 0.001) and decrease in BMI (1.5 vs 8.8; p < 0.001) was greater in AGB-RYGB vs. AGB-LSG. No significant difference in remission or development of new comorbidities was observed.

CONCLUSION

Conversion of AGB to RYGB is associated with superior intermediate-term weight loss compared to conversion of AGB to LSG. Future multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to further describe the intermediate-term outcomes of revisional bariatric surgery.

Trends and safety of bariatric revisional surgery in Italy: multicenter, prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) represents a further solution for patients who experience inadequate weight loss (IWL) following primary bariatric surgery (BS) or significant weight regain (WR) following initial satisfactory response. RBS guidelines are lacking; however, an increased trend in further BS offerings has been reported recently.

OBJECTIVE

Analyze trend, mortality, complication, readmission, and reoperation rates for any reason at 30 days after RBS in Italy.

SETTING

Ten Italian high-volume BS centers (university hospitals and private centers).

METHODS

Prospective, observational, multicenter study enrolling patients undergoing RBS between October 1, 2021, and March 31, 2022, registering reasons for RBS, technique, mortality, intraoperative and perioperative complications, readmissions, and reinterventions for any reason. Patients undergoing RBS during the same calendar interval in 2016-2020 were considered control patients.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients were enrolled and compared with 560 control-group patients. Mortality was .45% versus .35% (n.s), with an overall mortality of .25%, while open surgery or conversion to open surgery was registered in 1%. No difference was found for mortality, morbidity, complications, readmission (1.3%), and reoperation rates (2.2%). IWL/WR was the most frequent cause, followed by gastroesophageal reflux disease; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was the most used revisional procedure (56%). Sleeve gastrectomy was the most revised procedure in the study group, while gastric banding was the most revised in the control group. RBS represents up to 9% of the total BS in the Italian participating centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy represents the standard approach for RBS, which appears safe. Current Italian trends show a shift toward sleeve gastrectomy being the most revised procedure and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass being the most frequent revisional procedure.

Non-response After Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy-the Theoretical Need for Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Results from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery is a second-line treatment option after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric bypass (GBP) in patients with primary or secondary non-response. The aim was to analyze the theoretical need for revisional surgery after SG and GBP when applying four indication benchmarks.

METHOD

Based on data from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry, SG and GBP were compared regarding four endpoints: 1. excess weight loss (%EWL) < 50%, 2. weight regain of more than 10 kg after nadir, 3. fulfillment of previous IFSO-guidelines, or 4. ADA criteria for bariatric metabolic surgery 2 years after primary surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 60,426 individuals were included in the study (SG: n = 7856 and GBP: n = 52,570). Compared to patients in the GBP group, more SG patients failed to achieve a %EWL > 50% (23.0% versus 8.5%, p < .001), regained more than 10 kg after nadir (4.3% versus 2.5%, p < .001), and more often fulfilled the IFSO criteria (8.0% versus 4.5%, p < .001) or the ADA criteria (3.3% versus 1.8%, p < 001) at the 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

SG is associated with a higher risk for weight non-response compared to GBP. To offer revisional bariatric surgery to all non-responders exceeds the bounds of feasibility and operability. Hence, individual prioritization and intensified evaluation of alternative second-line treatments are necessary.

Relationship between dietary macronutrient composition with weight loss after bariatric surgery: A systematic review

This systematic review evaluated the relationship between macronutrient intake and weight loss after bariatric surgery (BS). The MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, COCHRANE/CENTRAL, and SCOPUS databases were accessed in August 2021 to search for eligible articles: original publications with adults undergoing BS and indicating the relationship between macronutrients and weight loss. Titles that did not meet these criteria were excluded. The review was written according to the PRISMA guide, and the risk of bias was according to the Joanna Briggs manual. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. Eight articles with 2.378 subjects were included. The studies indicated a positive relationship between weight loss and protein intake after BS. Prioritization of protein followed by carbohydrates with a lower percentage of lipids favors weight loss and increases weight stability after BS. Among the results found, a 1% increase in protein intake raises the probability of obesity remission by 6%, and high-protein diet increase 50% weight loss success. Limitations are the methods of included studies and review process. It is concluded that high-protein intake >60 g a 90 g/day may favor weight loss and maintenance after BS, but it is relevant to balance the other macronutrients.

Minimally Invasive Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a MBSAQIP Accredited High-Volume Center

Background

With the rising number of bariatric surgeries performed annually, there has also been an increase in revisional bariatric surgeries (RBS). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and postoperative outcomes of RBS performed with a minimally invasive approach.

Methods

Retrospective analysis on a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent minimally invasive RBS between 2012 and 2019. Primary endpoints were conversion rate, major morbidity, mortality, and 30-day reoperation rate. Comparative analysis of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) vs. conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) was performed.

Results

A total of 221 patients underwent minimally invasive RBS, 137 (62%) laparoscopically and 84 (38%) robotically. The most common RBS were LAGB to SG (59.3%) and LAGB to RYGB conversions (16.7%). The main indication was weight loss failure (88.7%). Conversion rate, major morbidity, and mortality were 0.9, 3.2, and 0.4%, respectively. Urgent reoperation was required in 3.2% of cases. Total weight loss at 1 and 2-years follow- were 14.3 and 17.3%, respectively. Comparative analysis of LAGB conversion to SG vs. RYGB showed similar major morbidity (SG: 2.3% vs. RYGB 0%, p = 1). Greater total weight loss was achieved in LAGB to RYGB conversions at 1-year (SG: 14.8% vs. RYGB 25.3%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive RBS can be performed safely in a broad patient population with low conversion and complication rates, and improved weight loss outcomes. LAGB to RYGB conversions are associated with greater weight loss. Further randomized trials are needed to draw more conclusive recommendations.

Revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after failed gastric banding: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery is technically demanding and is usually associated with higher intraoperative and perioperative risks than primary procedures. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes of patients who had gastric bypass procedures performed as a rescue procedure for failed gastric banding, with those who had a primary gastric bypass.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The group of patients undergoing revisional gastric bypass for failed gastric band was matched in a 1:2 ratio with control patients who underwent a primary RYGB, based on gender, score, preoperative body mass index, and comorbidities. Data were retrospectively retrieved.

RESULTS

Thirty one (33.3%) patients underwent band removal and gastric bypass (group A) and 62 (66.6%) only primary gastric bypass (group B). Nonsignificant differences were seen in operative time, operative bleeding, or length of stay. Complications were more frequent in group A. Postoperative weight at 12-month follow-up was greater in group A, however, not statistically significant. Changes in weight, both absolute, and percentage were not different between groups. This observation was also true for BMI, in which no significant differences were seen. Overall, mean follow-up was 16 ± 3.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Gastric bypass can be performed as revisional bariatric surgery, with low complication rates and acceptable outcomes, though not with the same safety as a primary procedure. Gastric bypass is a satisfactory option for patients with a failed gastric band.

Safety and feasibility of revisional bariatric surgery following Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Band - Outcomes from a large UK private practice

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery is unavoidable in a proportion of patients. Despite its need, the development of this speciality has been hampered by its complexity and preferred delivery in institutional set ups. Although primary bariatric surgery can be delivered in the private sector; safety and feasibility of revisional bariatric surgery remains unexplored in this setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery following previous Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Band (LAGB) between 2008 and 2019 at a single private bariatric unit with a minimum follow up of at least 6 months were included. The primary aim was safety outcomes and 30-day morbidity.

RESULTS

178 patients with BMI of 45.6 ± 8.2 kg/m² underwent revisional bariatric surgery. One stage conversion was performed for 86.5% of the cases. At 9.5 ± 5.3 months follow up, BMI and percentage excess BMI loss were 31.8 ± 6.2 kg/m² and 62.6 ± 40% respectively. There was no mortality, and the major complication rate was 2.8%. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications based on one-stage vs. two-stage conversion (p = 0.52). There were no differences in weight loss outcomes post-revisional surgery according to the indication for revision (p = 0.446) or weight loss following primary surgery (p = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

Revisional bariatric surgery can be delivered safely in the private sector with good outcomes. One-stage conversions are feasible and do not detrimentally affect the morbidity of the procedure or the weight loss outcomes. More importantly, success following revisional surgery is independent of the indication for revision and weight loss outcomes following primary surgery.

Revisional large gastric pouch with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for patients with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index less than 35 kg/m2: a cause and effect analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the long-term efficacy of large gastric pouch surgery and revisional surgery in patients with a body mass index (BMI) < 35 kg/m² and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy with a large gastric pouch in our hospital. The clinical pre- and post-surgery data, including BMI, waist circumference, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), lipid metabolism-related indicators, homoeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and major complications, were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were included in the analysis, 12 of whom underwent revisional surgery. At their 5-year-follow-up after the primary surgery, the BMI and waist circumference of the patients with T2DM were lower than their baseline values. The BMI, HbA1c, HOMA-IR, FPG and waist circumference also decreased after the revisional surgery. The rates of remission of diabetes after the primary vs. after the revisional surgery were 4.17% vs. 41.70%, respectively (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy with a large gastric pouch is not effective in the long term and, therefore, is unsuitable for Chinese patients with T2DM and a BMI < 35 kg/m². Conversely, revisional surgery has a definite effect on these patients.

Is Revisional Gastric Bypass as Effective as Primary Gastric Bypass for Weight Loss and Improvement of Comorbidities?

BACKGROUND

Revisional gastric bypass (R-RYGB) surgery is utilized for the management of inadequate weight loss or weight regain observed after some cases of bariatric surgeries. Data on the mid-term effectiveness of primary gastric bypass (P-RYGB) compared with R-RYGB (e.g., post sleeve gastrectomy/gastric banding) are controversial.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of all patients who received P-RYGB and R-RYGB (January 2011-June 2015) at our center. One hundred twenty patients who underwent P-RYGB and 34 R-RYGB who completed 18 months follow-up were included. We compared the effectiveness of P-RYGB with R-RYGB by assessing four anthropometric, two glycemic, and four lipid parameters, as well as the control of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), hypertension, dyslipidemia (remission, improvement, persistence, relapse, de novo), mortality and complications rates.

RESULTS

A comparison of the effectiveness of P-RYGB with R-RYGB at 18 months revealed no significant differences in patients' age, gender, and preoperative BMI between groups. However, patients who received P-RYGB had lower mean weight (P = 0.001) and BMI (P < 0.001), reflected by a higher mean delta BMI (P = 0.02), total weight loss percentage (TWL%) (P < 0.0001) and excess weight loss percentage (EWL%) (P < 0.0001). No differences in glycemic parameters, lipid profiles, control of T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia were observed. No death is reported and complication rates were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Although R-RYGB effectively addressed inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and recurrence of comorbidities after restrictive bariatric surgery, R-RYGB resulted in inferior weight loss compared with P-RYGB. Neither procedure differed in their clinical control of T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Both procedures exhibited comparable complication rates.

Weight Regain and Insufficient Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery: Definitions, Prevalence, Mechanisms, Predictors, Prevention and Management Strategies, and Knowledge Gaps-a Scoping Review

Some patients experience weight regain (WR) or insufficient weight loss (IWL) after bariatric surgery (BS). We undertook a scoping review of WR and IWL after BS. We searched electronic databases for studies addressing the definitions, prevalence, mechanisms, clinical significance, preoperative predictors, and preventive and treatment approaches including behavioral, pharmacological, and surgical management strategies of WR and IWL. Many definitions exist for WR, less so for IWL, resulting in inconsistencies in the reported prevalence of these two conditions. Mechanisms and preoperative predictors contributing to WR are complex and multifactorial. A range of the current knowledge gaps are identified and questions that need to be addressed are outlined. Therefore, there is an urgent need to address these knowledge gaps for a better evidence base that would guide patient counseling, selection, and lead to improved outcomes.

The Effectiveness and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Re-sleeve Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Weight regain following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) may be due to dilation of the gastric reservoir. Laparoscopic re-sleeve gastrectomy (LrSG) is among the revisional surgery options.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of LrSG for weight loss after a 12- and 24-month follow-up period.

SETTING

Bariatric surgery center in Baku/Azerbaijan.

METHOD

From June 2016 to June 2019, a total of 34 LSG patients with weight regain, underwent LrSG. We prospectively followed outcomes data were BMI changes, excessive weight loss, changes in laboratory values, and the presence of complications.

RESULTS

The mean age at revision surgery was 36 ± 7.09 (range, 22-51) years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) before LrSG was 40 ± 5.2 kg/m2. The mean time between the primary and revision surgery was 50 ± 7.8 months. The main reasons for the revisions were weight regain and inadequate weight loss. The mean BMI value decrease at the 12th and 24th months were 27.7 ± 2 and 24.3 ± 1.02, which were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Analyses of hemoglobin A1C (A1C) values showed that the differences at the baseline, 12th and 24th months were statistically significant (95% 1.96 to 3.39, p < 0.001 and 95% CI 0.34 to 2.08, p = 0.005, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with weight regain or inadequate weight loss after LSG, LrSG may be a feasible and safe revisional procedure in a selected group of patients. Larger studies that compare other revisional surgery options (LRYGB, OAGB, duodenal switch, single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass) with LrSG are required.

Third bariatric procedure for insufficient weight loss or weight regain: how far should we go?

BACKGROUND

Revisional procedures in bariatric surgery are increasing with several debated failure risk factors, such as super obesity and old age. No study has yet evaluated the outcomes and risks of a third bariatric procedure indicated for weight loss failure or weight regain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess failure risks of a third bariatric procedure according to Reinhold's criteria (percentage excess weight loss [%EWL] ≤50% and/or body mass index [BMI] ≥35 kg/m²).

SETTING

A university-affiliated tertiary care center, France.

METHODS

From 2009 to 2019, clinical data and weight loss results of patients who benefited from 3 bariatric procedures for weight loss failure or weight regain were collected prospectively and analyzed using a binary logistic regression. Weight loss failure was defined according to Reinhold's criteria.

RESULTS

Among 1401 bariatric procedures performed, 336 patients benefited from 2 or more procedures, and 45 had a third surgery. Eleven patients that were reoperated on because of malnutrition or gastroesophageal reflux disease were excluded from the final analysis. Among 34 patients with 3 procedures because of weight loss failure or regain, mean BMI was 48.3 ± 8.3 kg/m², and mean age was 30 ± 10.7 years. Three out of 34 patients (9%) presented a severe complication (Dindo-Clavien IIIb) and 2 (6%) had a minor one. Achieving Reinhold's weight loss criteria after the second bariatric procedure was a significant predictor of success of the third procedure (β = 2.9 ± 1.3 S.E.).

CONCLUSION

Not reaching Reinhold's criteria after a second bariatric procedure was identified as a significant risk factor of failure of a third procedure. A third surgery should be carefully discussed especially in case of primary failure of previous procedures.

Outcomes of primary versus revisional robotically assisted laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a multicenter analysis of ten-year experience

Background

Postoperative morbidity after laparoscopic bariatric surgery is considered higher for patients undergoing revisional versus primary procedures. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to compare outcomes between patients undergoing primary versus revisional robotically assisted laparoscopic (RAL) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

Methods

Data of all patients who underwent RAL primary and revisional RYGB between 2009 and 2019 at two accredited, high-volume bariatric surgery centers—the Memorial Hermann – Texas Medical Center, Houston, TX, and the Tower Health, Reading Hospital, Reading, PA, were analyzed. Primary outcomes were early (< 30 days) and overall postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative complications, operative times, conversions to laparotomy, length of hospital stay, early (< 30 days) postoperative readmissions and deaths.

Results

Data of 1072 patients were analyzed, including 806 primary and 266 revisional RAL RYGB procedures. Longer operative times (203 versus 154 min, P < 0.001), increased number of readmissions for oral intolerance (10.5% versus 6.7%, P = 0.046) and higher rate of gastrojejunal stricture (6.4% versus 2.7%, P = 0.013) were found in the revisional group. Gastrointestinal leak rates were 0.2% for the primary versus 1.1% for the revisional group (P = 0.101). Early (< 30 days) reoperations rates were 2.2% for the primary versus 1.1% for the revisional group (P = 0.318). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in overall and severe complication rates.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing RAL primary and revisional RYGB had comparable overall outcomes, with a non-significant higher early complication rate in the revisional group. Despite the study being underpowered to detect differences in specific complication rates, the morbidity seen in the revisional RYGB group remains markedly below literature reports of revisional laparoscopic RYGB and might suggest a benefit of robotic assistance. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

Midterm results of revisional bariatric surgery postsleeve gastrectomy: resleeve versus bypass

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery has been shown to produce the most predictable weight loss results, with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) being the most performed procedure as of 2014. However, inadequate weight loss may present the need for a revisional procedure.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic resleeve gastrectomy (LRSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in attaining successful weight loss.

SETTING

Public hospital following SG.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who underwent SG from 2008-2019. A list was obtained of those who underwent revisional bariatric surgery after initial SG, and their demographic characteristics were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 2858 patients underwent SG, of whom 84 patients (3%) underwent either a revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rLRYGB) or LRSG. A total of 82% of the patients were female. The mean weight and body mass index (BMI) before SG for the LRSG and rLRYGB patients were 136.7 kg and 49.9 kg/m² and 133.9 kg and 50.5 kg/m², respectively. The mean BMI showed a drop from 42.0 to 31.7 (P < .001) 1 year post revisional surgery for the LRSG group and 42.7 to 34.5 (P < .001) for the rLRYGB group, correlating to an excess weight loss (EWL) of 61.7% and 48.1%, respectively. At 5 years post revisional surgery, LRSG patients showed an increase in BMI to 33.8 (EWL = 45.3%), while those who underwent rLRYGB showed a decrease to 34.3 (EWL = 49.2%). Completeness of follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years for rLRYGB and LRSG were 67%, 35%, and 24% and 45%, 21%, and 18%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional bariatric surgery is a safe and effective method for the management of failed primary SG. LRSG patients tended to do better earlier on; however, it leveled off with those who underwent rLRYGB by 5 years.

Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Safe Surgical Opportunity? Results of a Case-Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after adjustable gastric banding (AGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) compared with primary RYGB, in regard to early and late morbidity, weight, and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities.

METHODS

The group of patients undergoing revisional RYGB was matched in a 1:1 ratio with control patient who underwent a primary RYGB, based on age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, preoperative body mass index (BMI), and diabetes mellitus. Demographics, anthropometrics, preoperative work-up, and perioperative data were retrieved.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients (16 males and 99 females) with a mean age of 45.5 ± 1.5 years underwent revisional RYGB following either LAGB in 82 patients (71.3%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in 33 patients (28.7%). There was no conversion and no mortality in either group. Revisional RYGB was associated with similar early (16.5 vs 15.6%, ns) and late (42.6% vs 32.2%, ns) morbidity rates with a mean follow-up of 25.3 ± 16.6 months compared to primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The revisional RYGB group had significantly less weight loss (mean %EWL 67.4 ± 20.7 vs 72.7 ± 22.9, p = 0.023 and mean %EBMI 68.1 ± 22 vs 78.3 ± 25.7, p = 0.01) at the time of 1 year. Improvement of comorbidities including hypertension (62.5 vs 70.5%; p > 0.05), diabetes (73.7 vs 79%; p > 0.05), and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (100 vs 97%; p > 0.05) was similar.

CONCLUSION

This large case-matched study suggests that conversion of SG or AGB to RYGB is feasible with early and late comparable morbidity in an accredited center; even weight results might be inferior.

Gastric Bypass as a Third Bariatric Procedure-Our Experience with 42 Cases

BACKGROUND

It is not uncommon to encounter patients seeking a third, fourth, or even fifth bariatric procedure. With higher expected complication rates and questionable patient benefit, the indication for multiple revisions is still in doubt. To evaluate the perioperative and post-operative outcomes of patients undergoing gastric bypass after two previous bariatric surgeries or more.

METHODS

We identified all patients that underwent gastric bypass following at least 2 previous bariatric surgeries. We looked at patient demographics, previous bariatric surgeries, pre-operative body mass index (BMI) and obesity-related co-morbidities, perioperative complications, length of stay (LOS), re-admissions and re-operations, percentage of excess weight loss, and resolution or improvement in comorbidities.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients met the inclusion criteria, the majority being females (31, 73.8%). Average age was 45.6 years (range 27-62), average weight and BMI was 116 kg (range 75-175 kg) and 41.1 kg/m² (range 25.6-58.7 kg/m²), respectively. Thirty-two patients had two previous bariatric surgeries (73.8%), and 10 patients had 3 former bariatric surgeries (23.8%), and for one patient, this was the fifth bariatric procedure (2.4%). Mean LOS was 10 days (range 2-56 days). Eight patients (19%) needed re-admission and 5 (11.9%) needed re-operation. At a median follow up of 48 months (range 7-99 months), the average BMI was 34.5 kg/m² (range 23.7-55.1 kg/m²) reflecting an excess BMI loss of 43.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastric bypass as a third or more bariatric procedure is effective yet associated with high complication rates, re-admissions, and re-operations.

Revisional Gastric Bypass Is Inferior to Primary Gastric Bypass in Terms of Short- and Long-term Outcomes-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Although Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the main primary bariatric procedure, it has also been utilized as revisional bariatric surgery. Our aim is to compare revisionary gastric bypass with primary gastric bypass through systematic review with meta-analysis.

Methods

Available literature was searched for eligible studies up to December 2017. Inclusion criteria were reports on morbidity, %EWL, or diabetes remission. Secondary outcomes involved mortality, anastomotic leakage, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Random effect meta-analyses were undertaken.

Results

Initial search yielded 1164 references. Final meta-analysis involved 21 studies and revealed significant differences in terms of morbidity (RR1.54, p < 0.001) and EWL (WMD-19.9, p < 0.001). There were no differences in diabetes remission.

Conclusion

Revisionary RYGB has worse weight loss effect with greater morbidity rate than primary RYGB.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11695-018-3300-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

30-Day Outcomes of Revisional Bariatric Stapling Procedures: First Report Based on MBSAQIP Data Registry

INTRODUCTION

The number of bariatric revisional cases has nearly doubled since 2011, and now comprises 13.6% of the total number of cases. The objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes and safety of the two most common stapling revisional procedures, namely, sleeve and gastric bypass in comparison to primary stapling procedures using the MBSAQIP data registry.

METHODS

We reviewed all the sleeve and gastric bypass cases entered between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, in the MBSAQIP data registry. We, then, identified sleeve and bypass patients who have had a previous bariatric procedure. Demographics and 30 day outcomes of all sleeve and gastric bypass patients were analyzed. We conducted within group comparisons comparing primary sleeve gastrectomy (PS) and primary gastric bypass (PB) patients to revisional sleeve (RS) and revisional gastric bypass (RB) patients, respectively. We, then, conducted group comparisons comparing RS to RB patients.

RESULTS

The total number of patients analyzed was 141,577 (98,292 or 69% sleeve patients and 43,285 or 31% gastric bypass patients). Among the sleeve patients, 92,666 (94%) had a PS and 5626 (6%) had RS. Among the bypass patients, 39,567 (91%) had a PB and 3718 patients (9%) had RB. 30-day readmission rate of RS was significantly higher as compared to PS (4.1 vs 0.4%, p < 0.05). The incidence of at least one complication requiring reoperation or reintervention within 30 days following RS was twice as high as compared to PS (1.9 and 2% for RS vs 0.9 and 1.1% for PS respectively, p < 0.05). Length of stay and 30 day mortality rates for PS and RS were the same. 30-day readmission rate of RB as compared to PB was 8.3 vs 6.3% (p < 0.05). Also, the incidence of at least one complication requiring reoperation or reintervention following RB was 3.9 and 4%, respectively vs 2.4 and 2.7% for PB (p < 0.05). In addition, readmission rates and unplanned admission rates to the ICU were significantly higher for RB compared to RS (8.3 and 2% for RB vs 4.1 and 0.9% for RS respectively, p < 0.05). The incidence of at least one reoperation or one intervention following RB were also significantly higher compared to RS (3.9 vs 1.9% and 4 vs 2% respectively, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Revisional stapling procedures are safe but the rates of complications following RS and RB are twice as high compared to PS and PB. Also, RB are more likely to develop complications compared to RS.

Value of robotic-assisted technique in redo gastrojejunostomy for severe stenosis after gastric bypass

Development of gastrojejunal stricture following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) leads to an increase in morbidity and adverse effects, such as abdominal pain, vomiting, aspiration pneumonia, and malnutrition. Up to 38.5% of patients will require revisional surgery for late anastomotic strictures despite conservative treatment. However, no previous studies focused on revisional robotic bariatric surgery due to strictures after RYGB have been reported. To evaluate our outcomes and assess the advantages of the robotic platform with regard to laparoscopic and open revisional procedures. University Hospital. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic robotic-assisted redo gastrojejunostomy from 2016 to 2018. Demographics, surgical data, medical treatments, postoperative outcomes, and adverse effects were collected. Nine patients with symptomatic anastomotic strictures after primary RYGB underwent robotic revisional surgery. All patients received medical therapy as a first approach, and five patients (55.5%) underwent endoscopic balloon dilation. All procedures were successfully completed with robotic assistance, with a mean (standard deviation) operative time of 184.5 (49.1) min, and no intraoperative adverse effects were registered. Median (range) hospital stay was 2 (1-4) days. One patient presented with a postoperative intra-abdominal abscess and was treated with intravenous antibiotics and image-guided drainage. No anastomotic leak, hemorrhage, or mortality were reported. Robotic assistance seems to be safe and effective for redo gastrojejunostomy secondary to stricture. Even though the sample size is small, we believe that the application of robotic techniques may provide advantages and improve the outcomes in these complex revisional procedures.

Canadian consensus statement: enhanced recovery after surgery in bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

In Canada, bariatric surgery continues to remain the most effective treatment for severe obesity and its comorbidities. As the number of bariatric surgeries continues to grow, the need for consensus guidelines for optimal perioperative care is imperative. In colorectal surgery, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols were created for this purpose. The objective of this review is to develop evidence-based ERAS guidelines for bariatric surgery.

METHODS

A literature search of the MEDLINE database was performed using ERAS-specific search terms. Recently published articles with a focus on randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were included. Quality of evidence and recommendations were evaluated using the GRADE assessment system.

RESULTS

Canadian bariatric surgeons from six provinces and ten bariatric centers performed a review of the evidence surrounding ERAS in bariatric surgery and created consensus guidelines for 14 essential ERAS elements. Our main recommendations were (1) to encourage participation in a presurgical weight loss program; (2) to abstain from tobacco and excessive alcohol; (3) low-calorie liquid diet for at least 2 weeks prior to surgery; (4) to avoid preanesthetic anxiolytics and long-acting opioids; (5) unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin prior to surgery; (6) antibiotic prophylaxis with cefazolin ± metronidazole; (7) reduced opioids during surgery; (8) surgeon preference regarding intraoperative leak testing; (9) nasogastric intubation needed only for Veress access; (10) to avoid abdominal drains and urinary catheters; (11) to prevent ileus by discontinuing intravenous fluids early; (12) postoperative analgesia with acetaminophen, short-term NSAIDS, and minimal opioids; (13) to resume full fluid diet on first postoperative day; (14) early telephone follow-up with full clinic follow-up at 3-4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of addressing these ERAS elements is to develop guidelines that can be implemented and practiced clinically. ERAS is an excellent model that improves surgical efficiency and acts as a common perioperative pathway. In the interim, this multimodal bariatric perioperative guideline serves as a common consensus point for Canadian bariatric surgeons.

A novel risk prediction model for 30-day severe adverse events and readmissions following bariatric surgery based on the MBSAQIP database

BACKGROUND

Although bariatric surgery is safe, some patients fear serious complications.

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study used the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) database to evaluate patient outcomes for gastric bypass (GB) and sleeve gastrectomy and to develop a risk prediction model for serious adverse events (SAEs) and readmission rates 30 days after surgery.

SETTING

MBSAQIP national patient database.

METHODS

We created separate exploratory multivariable logistic regression models for SAEs and readmissions. We then externally validated both models using the 2016 MBSAQIP Participant Use Data File.

RESULTS

Significant predictors of SAEs were preoperative body mass index (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.07, P < .0001); GB surgery (AOR 2.08, P < .0001); cardiovascular disease (AOR 1.43, P < .0001); smoking (AOR 1.12, P = .04); diabetes (AOR 1.15, P = .0001); hypertension (AOR 1.17, P < .0001); limited ambulation (AOR 1.48, P < .0001); sleep apnea (AOR 1.12, P = .001); history of pulmonary embolism (AOR 2.81, P < .0001); and steroid use (AOR 1.40, P = .001). Significant predictors of readmissions were GB surgery (AOR 1.81, P < .0001); female sex (AOR 1.26, P < .0001); diabetes (AOR 1.08, P = .04); hypertension (AOR 1.11, P = .004); preoperative body mass index (AOR 1.05, P < .0001); sleep apnea (AOR 1.11, P = .002); history of pulmonary embolism (AOR 2.35, P < .0001); cardiovascular disease (AOR 1.61, P < .0001); smoking (AOR 1.14, P = .01); and limited ambulation (AOR 1.55, P < .0001). External validation supported these covariates, with similar model discriminative power.

CONCLUSIONS

Our exploratory regression models may be used by clinicians to counsel patients about surgical risks, although future external validation should occur in non-North American populations.

Management of Complications and Outcomes After Revisional Bariatric Surgery: 3-Year Experience at a Bariatric Center of Excellence

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is increasingly common. A tailored decision-making process is advocated. In this retrospective study, we reviewed the RBS experience of a single center, analyzing perioperative complications to provide insight into management options and midterm outcomes.

METHODS

Records from November 2011 to March 2015 were reviewed from prospectively maintained database. Six hundred eighteen patients underwent laparoscopic bariatric procedures; of these, 81 (13.1 %) underwent RBS. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months (n = 77) were evaluated. Fifty-nine underwent revised laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and 18 underwent revised Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Indications for RBS were inadequate weight loss or weight regain in 42 cases (54.5 %) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), procedure-related complications, or technical failure in 35 cases (45.5 %).

RESULTS

There were no deaths or conversions to open surgery. After a mean follow-up of 22 months, body mass index (BMI) decreased from 40.9 ± 6.7 to 31.9 ± 4.8 kg/m(2), mean % excess weight loss (%EWL) was 58 ± 24.3 %, and 55.3 % of patients had resolution of comorbidities. Eight major complications (10.4 %) occurred: five leaks and three intra-abdominal hematomas. Non-surgical management succeeded in 50 % of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that RBS is challenging; a complication rate of 10 % is expected. Major surgery can be avoided when devoted endoscopists and radiologists are available. Intensive follow-up after complications allows early diagnosis and treatment of unfavorable sequelae. RBS induced a mean %EWL of 58 % at 2 years and resolution of comorbidities in 50 % of cases. However, the durability of these effects remains questionable.

Esophagopericardial fistula: an unexpected dreaded complication of treatment of leak following revisional sleeve gastrectomy by endoscopic internal drainage

Esophagopericardial fistula (EPF) is an uncommon but life-threatening complication of upper gastrointestinal tract surgery or endoscopy, which is related to anastomotic breakdown, chronic infection or esophageal traumatism. We first describe the first case of an EPF secondary to double pigtail drain migration: an endoscopic internal approach for the treatment of leak following revisional sleeve gastrectomy.

Quality criteria in bariatric surgery: Consensus review and recommendations of the Spanish Association of Surgeons and the Spanish Society of Bariatric Surgery

Bariatric surgery has proven to be highly effective in controlling obesity and metabolic syndrome; the results of this surgery are not only expressed in terms of weight loss, but also in terms of resolution of comorbidities, improved quality of life and complications. The different parameters used to measure these outcomes require uniformity and reference patterns. Therefore, it is essential to identify those indicators and quality criteria that are helpful in defining the «best practice» principles in bariatric surgery. In this regard, the Section of Obesity of the Spanish Association of Surgeons, in collaboration with the Spanish Society for Bariatric Surgery (SECO), present as an objective to identify the key points that define «quality» in this type of surgery. We describe the main indicators based on the published literature as well as the criteria for referral of the main comorbidities according to the evidence found and grades of recommendation.

Psychosocial presentation of female bariatric surgery patients after multiple revisional surgeries: A qualitative study

Bariatric surgery is currently the most viable and cost-effective treatment for obesity. This study aimed to understand, from a female patient’s perspective, what contributed to not achieving or maintaining excess weight loss from a primary laparoscopic adjustable gastric band surgery, leading to subsequent multiple revisional bariatric surgeries. The purposive sample of participants ( N = 17 females) were over 18 years, had a primary failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band and had more than three revisional procedures. Participants were individually interviewed and data were analysed from a grounded theory methodology to build a causal model with the core category of unrealistic expectations of bariatric surgery and other important conceptual categories.

Mid-term outcomes of gastric bypass weight loss failure to duodenal switch

BACKGROUND

The Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is a very effective treatment for obesity and its related co-morbidities. However, some patients fail to achieve>50% of their excess weight loss (EWL), and others regain much of the weight that they lost.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyze early outcomes after conversion of RYGB to duodenal switch (DS) in terms of weight loss, change in co-morbidities, and complications.

SETTING

This is a retrospective analysis from 1 surgeon at a single private institution.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 32 obese patients retrospectively who underwent revision for failed RYGB. Nine patients underwent DS with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (RYDS), and 23 patients underwent single anastomosis DS between October 2012 and December 2015. Regression analyses were performed for all follow-up weight-loss data.

RESULTS

The patients experienced mean EWL of 16.2% over an average of 16 years (range: 0-38) with their primary RYGB surgery. Of 32 patients who underwent revision DS, 22 patients are beyond the 1-year postoperative mark (follow-up 81.8%), and 15 patients are beyond the 2-year postoperative mark (follow-up 73.3%). One patient was lost to follow-up. The patients experienced mean EWL of 31.2%, 45.1%, 51%, 54.2%, 56%, and 56.4% at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively, after their revisional surgery. Mean total weight loss achieved at 12 and 24 months was 27.7% and 29.2%, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference in mean %EWL at 12 months (P = .468) and 24 months (P = .266) between RYDS and single anastomosis DS.

CONCLUSION

A laparoscopic revision from RYGB to DS is an effective weight-loss operation with midterm follow-up of 2 years. Though long-term follow-up is warranted to measure recidivism, the initial data seem favorable.

Outcomes of a third bariatric procedure for inadequate weight loss

Background and Objectives:

The robust volume of bariatric surgical procedures has led to significant numbers of patients requiring reoperative surgery because of undesirable results from primary operations. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of the third bariatric procedure after previous attempts resulted in inadequate results.

Methods:

We retrospectively identified patients who underwent a third bariatric procedure for inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain after the second operation. Data were analyzed to establish patient demographic characteristics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes.

Results:

A total of 12 patients were identified. Before the first, second, and third procedures, patients had a mean body mass index of 67.1 ± 29.3 kg/m², 60.9 ± 28.3 kg/m², and 49.4 ± 19.8 kg/m², respectively. The third operations (laparoscopic in 10 and open in 2) included Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 5), revision of pouch and/or stoma of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 3), limb lengthening after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 3), and sleeve gastrectomy (n = 1). We encountered 5 early complications in 4 patients, and early reoperative intervention was needed in 2 patients. At 1-year follow-up, the excess weight loss of the cohort was 49.4% ± 33.8%. After a mean follow-up time of 43.0 ± 28.6 months, the body mass index of the cohort reached 39.9 ± 20.8 kg/m², which corresponded to a mean excess weight loss of 54.4% ± 44.0% from the third operation. At the latest follow-up, 64% of patients had excess weight loss >50% and 45% had excess weight loss >80%.

Conclusion:

Reoperative bariatric surgery can be carried out successfully (often laparoscopically), even after 2 previous weight loss procedures.

Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review of Comparative Outcomes with Respective Primary Procedures

Though primary bariatric surgery is now firmly established as the first-line treatment for morbid obesity, this is not the case with revisional bariatric surgery. Despite proven benefits and patient demand, revisional bariatric surgery continues to attract controversy. Even though it is widely believed to be riskier and less effective than primary bariatric surgery, there is currently no systematic review in literature addressing this point. This review aims to establish outcomes after revisional bariatric surgery in comparison with those after primary bariatric surgery. Since Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy is currently the commonest anatomy achieved after revisional bariatric surgery, this review focuses on the outcome of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and revisional sleeve gastrectomy in comparison with respective primary procedures.

Laparoscopic hand-sewn revisional gastrojejunal plication for weight loss failure after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery has become a widely accepted alternative for weight loss failure/regain after bariatric surgery. However, it is associated to higher morbi-mortality and lesser weight loss than primary bariatric procedure. Our aims are to present a novel technique for weight loss treatment after failed laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and to report its short-term results.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of patients submitted to a revisional hand-sewn double-layer gastrojejunal plication (GJP) for treatment of weight loss failure/regain after LRYGB. Analysis of demographics, body mass index (BMI), and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at the 6th month complications, and financial costs involved was included.

RESULTS

Four patients were submitted to revisional GJP. Three patients were female and the mean age at revision was 30 ± 9 years (21-44). The median time interval between LRYGB and GJP was 51 months (24-120). The median BMI at the moment of GJP and the 3rd and 6th month was 35.6 kg/m2 (32.0-37.8), 32.2 kg/m2 (29.7-34.1), and 30.7 kg/m2 (28.1-32.1), respectively. The median %EWL at the 3rd and 6th month was 35.4% (13.6-38.9) and 46.2 % (45.1-55.5), respectively, reaching a cumulative (combined surgeries) %EWL of 62.9% (16.5-67.9) and 71.7% (65.1-77.6), respectively. There were no complications or mortality. Financial costs were significantly lower compared to revisional gastrojejunal stapled reduction (US $1400 cheaper).

CONCLUSION

Revisional GJP is a feasible, safe, and cost-effective novel procedure for treatment of weight loss failure/regain after LRYGB. Mid- and long-term results are necessary in order to establish its real effectiveness.

Worthy or not? Six-year experience of revisional bariatric surgery from an Asian center of excellence

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is increasing. The various primary operations with their distinctive complications make this group of patients quite heterogeneous, and treatment has to be individualized. There are concerns regarding the safety profile and efficacy of these procedures. The objective of the present study was to analyze the indications, safety, and efficacy of RBS at a high-volume Asian center and provide insight into the different treatment options.

METHODS

Of a total of 1578 bariatric surgeries from July 2006 to June 2012, 52 patients underwent revisional bariatric procedures. The primary operations included 6 different procedures. The indications for surgery were grouped into weight loss failure (n = 21) or complications related to the primary operation (n = 31). The revisional operations performed were conversion to another procedure (n = 22), revision of existing anatomy (n = 29), or reversal to normal anatomy (n = 1).

RESULTS

96% of revisional surgeries were performed laparoscopically. The median operating time was 72 minutes (25-240 min), and the median duration of hospital stay was 4 days (3-25 d). The mean body mass index for weight loss failure decreased significantly from 36.3 to 29.6 kg/m(2) after 1 year of revisional surgery (P<.01). However, revision of RYGB was only associated with a body mass index loss of 3.2 kg/m(2) and percentage of excess weight loss of 31.8%. More than 90% of the patients with complications had complete resolution of their preoperative symptoms. There were 3 major complications with an overall morbidity rate of 5.8%. There was no mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

RBS is well-tolerated, with satisfactory early outcomes, in high-volume centers. However, larger studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to determine the long-term efficacy of these procedures.

Revision surgery for treatment of weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate results on revision surgery for weight regain after gastric bypass, based on surgical technique and follow-up.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of 29 patients who presented weight regain on follow-up after more than 5 years, divided into four groups according to revision surgery type: group 1 (n = 9) includes patients who underwent an increase in the length of the alimentary limb to 200 cm; group 2 (n = 13) are patients who underwent an increase in the length of the alimentary limb and placing of a silicon ring; group 3 (n = 2) are patients who underwent an increase in the length of the alimentary limb and gastric plication, and group 4 (n = 5) are patients who underwent gastric plication and placing of a silicon ring.

RESULTS

The average preoperative weight before revision surgery was 117.8 kg, and the average postoperative follow-up for revision surgery was 13.7 months. Weight loss after revision surgery was observed in all groups but was greater in patients with longer revisional postoperative follow-up. Patients who underwent placing of a silicon ring presented greater weight loss than those who had had such a band since the original gastric bypass operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Data suggest that revision surgery may be a useful tool in achieving weight loss in patients presenting weight regain following gastric bypass, obesity, bariatric surgery, gastric bypass, weight regain, and revision surgery.

Revisional bariatric surgery for unsuccessful weight loss and complications

BACKGROUND

There are growing numbers of patients who require revisional bariatric surgery due to the undesirable results of their primary procedures. The aim of this study was to review our experience with bariatric patients undergoing revisional surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis to review the indications for revisional bariatric procedures and assess their postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

From 04/04 to 01/11, 2,918 patients underwent bariatric surgery at our institution. A total of 154 patients (5.3%) of these cases were coded as revisional procedures. The mean age at revision was 49.1 ± 11.3 and the mean BMI was 44.0 ± 13.7 kg/m2. Revisional surgery was performed laparoscopically in 121 patients (78.6%). Laparoscopic revisions had less blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and fewer complications compared to open revisions. Two groups (A and B) were defined by the indication for revision: patients with unsuccessful weight loss (group A, n = 106) and patients with complications of their primary procedures (group B, n = 48). In group A, 74.5% of the patients were revised to a bypass procedure and 25.5% to a restrictive procedure. Mean excess weight loss was 53.7 ± 29.3% after revision of primary restrictive procedures and 37.6 ± 35.1% after revision of bypass procedures at >1-year follow-up (p < 0.05). In group B, the complications prompting revision were effectively treated by revisional surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional bariatric surgery effectively treated the undesirable results from primary bariatric surgery. Laparoscopic revisional surgery can be performed after both failed open and laparoscopic bariatric procedures without a prohibitive complication rate. Carefully selected patients undergoing revision for weight regain have satisfactory additional weight loss.