Long-term follow-up in patients undergoing open gastric bypass as a revisional operation for previous failed restrictive procedures

Duodeno-ileal diversion with self-forming magnets in a sutureless neodymium anastomosis procedure (SNAP) for weight recidivism after sleeve gastrectomy: feasibility and 9-month results

BACKGROUND

The sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has become the most common bariatric procedure worldwide. However, insufficient weight loss or weight recidivism is frequent, which may require effective and safe revisional procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the technical feasibility and safety of a minimally invasive, duodeno-ileal side-to-side anastomosis using a Sutureless Neodymium Anastomosis Procedure (SNAP) for patients with weight recidivism or inadequate weight loss following SG.

METHODS

This is a prospective, single-arm, open-label pilot study that enrolled patients with obesity to assist in weight reduction following an SG performed > 12 months prior. For the SNAP, self-assembling magnets were deployed into the ileum (laparoscopically) and duodenum (per-oral endoscopy). Magnets were coupled under laparoscopic and fluoroscopic guidance to create a compression anastomosis. The primary endpoints were technical feasibility, weight loss, and rate of serious adverse events (SAEs).

RESULTS

Successful duodeno-ileal diversions were created with SNAP in 27 participants (mean age: 50.6 ± 9.1, mean BMI: 38.1 ± 4.6 kg/m2) with no device-related serious adverse events. Upper endoscopy at 3 months confirmed patent, healthy anastomoses in all patients. At 9 months, patients (n = 24) experienced 11.9 ± 6.2%, 14.5 ± 10.8%, and 17.0 ± 13.9% TBWL at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively. There were no device-related SAEs.

CONCLUSION

The SNAP is technically feasible and relatively safe, with all patients presenting widely patent anastomosis at 3 months. Patients experienced a progressive, clinically meaningful weight loss. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Medium and Long-Term Weight Loss After Revisional Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Despite the current increase in revisional bariatric surgery (RBS), data on the sustainability of weight loss remain unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess weight loss outcomes in adult patients undergoing RBS with follow-up > 2 years. Twenty-eight observational studies (n = 2213 patients) were included. The %TWL was 27.2 (95%CI = 23.7 to 30.6), and there was a drop in BMI of 10.2 kg/m2 (95%CI =  - 11.6 to - 8.7). The %EWL was 54.8 (95%CI = 47.2 to 62.4) but with a high risk of publication bias (Egger's test = 0.003). The overall quality of evidence was very low. Our data reinforce that current evidence on RBS is mainly based on low-quality observational studies, and further higher-quality studies are needed to support evidence-based practice.

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.

The Use of the Overstitch for Bariatric Weight Loss

Obesity is a public health pandemic and leading contributor to morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic bariatric therapies have emerged as a viable minimally invasive treatment option to fill the therapeutic gap between conservative and surgical approaches. The ability to reliably place full-thickness sutures throughout the gastrointestinal tract has opened the door to novel endoscopic gastric restrictive procedures. A growing body of literature supports endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty as a safe, effective, and reproducible endoscopic treatment of obesity and metabolic syndrome. In addition, endoscopic sutured revision procedures following gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy are now first-line with demonstrable safety and long-term efficacy.

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as an Effective Bariatric Revisional Surgery after Restrictive Procedures

INTRODUCTION

Revisional surgery must be considered when insufficient weight loss is attained or weight is subsequently regained. This study aimed to investigate the value of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as a revisional procedure after restrictive surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational, retrospective study including patients initially operated on for morbid obesity with restrictive techniques (vertical-banded gastroplasty [VBG], adjustable gastric band [AGB], and sleeve gastrectomy) and reoperated with RYGB in our centre between December 1994 and January 2019. Demographic and anthropometric data, associated comorbidities (diabetes mellitus type II, arterial hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and surgery-related data (approach, complications, and hospital stay) were evaluated at 5 different time points: initial (prior to first intervention), after the first surgical intervention, before the second intervention (gastric bypass), after the gastric bypass, and at present.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients were included. VBG was the most frequent initial procedure (n = 33). The mean age was 39 ± 9.52 years, and the average initial weight was 143.53 ± 28.6 kg. Weight loss was achieved in all groups, with a median excess weight loss of 58% after the first surgery and 40.3% after gastric bypass. In terms of weight loss, the best results after the second surgery were obtained when the first surgery was AGB, with statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

RYGB is effective as a conversion procedure after a previous restrictive surgery, obtaining a significant reduction in weight and BMI. It has an acceptable morbidity rate and is more effective after an AGB.

A Retrospective Comparative Study of Primary Versus Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Long-Term Results

AIMS

To compare the perioperative parameters and excess weight loss between patients operated by laporoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), as a primary operation or a revisional, for insufficient weight loss after vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) or adjustable gastric banding (AGB).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent a LRYGB was performed for the period 2004-2011. Demographics, preoperative body mass index (BMI), co-morbidities, operation time, conversion rate, perioperative complications, hospitalization period, and % of excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) were investigated and compared between groups.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-two laparoscopic gastric bypass operations were performed, 245 were primary, and 97 revisional. Median follow-up was 30 months (range 0-108 months). Mean BMI (kg/m²) before bypass was 45.2 for primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (pLRYGB) and 41.1 for revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rLRYGB). Median operative time and length of stay were longer for rLRYGB 157.5 versus 235 min (p < 0.001) and 6 versus 6.5 days (p = 0.05). Conversion to laparotomy was performed in eight patients, 0.4% of primary and 7.2% of revisional. Morbidity rate was 6.5% in pLRYGB versus 10% in rLRYGB (NS). There was one death in the primary group. Percentage of EBMIL was significantly lower in the revisional group at 12, 18, and 24 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional and primary gastric bypass have no statistical differences in terms of morbidity. The % of excess BMI loss is lower after revisional gastric bypass during the first 2 years of follow-up. The trend of weight loss or weight regain was similar in both groups.

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Ten-year Results in a Cohort of 658 Patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to report, with a high follow-up rate, 10-year results in a large cohort of patients after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) done essentially by laparoscopy.

BACKGROUND

RYGBP has been performed for 50 years, including 20 years by laparoscopy, yet very few long-term results have been reported, mostly after open surgery.

METHODS

Prospective bariatric database established since the introduction of bariatric surgery. Retrospective data analysis on weight loss, long-term complications, quality of life, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

In all, 658 consecutive patients (515 women/143 men) were included: 554 with primary RYGBP, 104 with reoperative RYGBP. There was 1 (0.15%) postoperative death. Thirty-two (5%) patients died during follow-up from causes unrelated to surgery. Ten years after primary RYGBP, patients lost 28.6 ± 10.5% of their initial weight, corresponding to a mean of 13.2 body mass index (BMI) units. Among them, 72.8% achieved a BMI <35. Weight loss ≥20% was seen in 80.3% and <10% in 3.9% of patients. Results were similar in patients undergoing primary or reoperative RYGBP, but were better in patients who were initially less obese (BMI <50 kg/m) than in superobese patients. Quality of life and comorbidities significantly improved with 80% resolution or improvement of metabolic comorbidities. All patients required supplementations, and 14.6% required long-term reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

RYGBP provides long-term satisfactory weight loss up to 10 years, and significantly improves quality of life and comorbidities. Long-term complications requiring reoperation can develop. Mineral and vitamin supplementation are universally necessary. Other more effective surgical options should be discussed in patients with very severe obesity.

Surgical management and outcomes of patients with marginal ulcer after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Marginal ulcers (MUs) are potentially complex complications after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Although most resolve with medical management, some require surgical intervention. Many surgical options exist, but there is no standardized approach, and few reports of outcomes have been documented in the literature. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of surgical management of marginal ulcers.

METHODS

Data from all patients who underwent surgical intervention between 2004 and 2012 for treatment of MU after previous Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were reviewed.

RESULTS

Twelve patients with MUs underwent reoperation. Nine patients had associated gastrogastric fistulae (75%). The median time to reoperation was 43 months. Ten patients underwent subtotal gastrectomy, of which 9 had a revision of the gastrojejunal anastomosis and 1 did not. One underwent total gastrectomy with esophagojejunal anastomosis for ulcer after previous revisional partial gastrectomy, and 1 patient underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic truncal vagotomy for persistent ulcer-related bleeding in the early postoperative period. Three patients (25%) experienced postoperative complications associated with revisional surgery requiring reoperation. At median follow-up time of 35 months, 7 patients (58%) had chronic abdominal pain, and 4 patients (33%) had intermittent diarrhea. Three patients (25%) were lost to recent follow-up. None had recurrence of MU.

CONCLUSION

Patients can undergo one of several available surgical interventions, including laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with gastrojejunostomy revision. Though this appears to offer definitive treatment of MU, its benefits must be weighed against the increased risk of significant postoperative complications and chronic symptoms related to revisional surgery.

Revisional surgery after failed gastric banding: results of one-stage conversion to RYGB in 195 patients

BACKGROUND

The most performed restrictive bariatric procedure is the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). With many patients still receiving a LAGB in Europe and the United States, inevitably, the number of complications also increases. For many complications revisional bariatric surgery is necessary. In this study, the outcomes of one-stage LAGB conversion to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) at our institution are presented. The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficiency of RYGB performed as a one-stage procedure after failed LAGB.

METHODS

Patients were retrospectively selected using a prospectively collected database. The gastric band had to be in situ for at least 1 year and minimum postoperative follow-up was 12 months. The revisional RYGB had to be performed as a 1-step procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 195 patients were included while 3 were lost to follow up. Overall, 178 (91%) procedures were performed without perioperative complications, and only 8 (4%) patients required reoperation within 30 days. The mean follow-up was 40 months (±24) after RYGB. Mean excess weight loss (EWL) increased from 25% (±26/-50- 120%) to 60% (±21.2/0- 130), 65% (±23.5/0- 131), 63% (±24.2/2- 132), 60% (±24.1/0- 111) and 53% (±28.7/-39- 109) in the first 5 postoperative years.

CONCLUSION

Converting a gastric band to a RYGB in a one-stage procedure is safe and feasible, with acceptable complication rates when performed in a specialized institution. The RYGB conversion results in a good EWL of 65% after 2 years. However, proper patient selection is of the utmost importance.

Duodenal switch versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity: systematic review and meta-analysis of weight results, diabetes resolution and early complications in single-centre comparisons

Long-term weight loss after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in super-obese patients has not been ideal. Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (DS) is argued to be better; however, additional side effects are feared. The aim of the present study was to determine differences in results after DS and RYGB in publications from single-centre comparisons. A systematic review of studies containing DS and RYGB performed at the same centre was performed. Outcome data were weight results, resolution of comorbid conditions, perioperative results and complications. Main outcome was difference in weight loss after DS and RYGB. Secondary outcomes were difference in resolution of comorbidities, perioperative results and complications. The final analysis included 16 studies with in total 874 DS and 1,149 RYGB operations. When comparing weight results at the longest follow-up of each study, DS yielded 6.2 (95% confidence interval 5.0-7.5) body mass index units additional weight loss compared with RYGB, P < 0.001. Operative time and length of stay were significantly longer after DS, as well as the risk for post-operative leaks, P < 0.05. DS is more effective than RYGB as a weight-reducing procedure. However, this comes at the price of more early complications and might also yield slightly higher perioperative mortality.

The economic impact of weight regain

Background. Obesity is well known for being associated with significant economic repercussions. Bariatric surgery is the only evidence-based solution to this problem as well as a cost-effective method of addressing the concern. Numerous authors have calculated the cost effectiveness and cost savings of bariatric surgery; however, to date the economic impact of weight regain as a component of overall cost has not been addressed. Methods. The literature search was conducted to elucidate the direct costs of obesity and primary bariatric surgery, the rate of weight recidivism and surgical revision, and any costs therein. Results. The quoted cost of obesity in Canada was $2.0 billion-$6.7 billion in 2013 CAD. The median percentage of bariatric procedures that fail due to weight gain or insufficient weight loss is 20% (average: 21.1% ± 10.1%, range: 5.2-39, n = 10). Revision of primary surgeries on average ranges from 2.5% to 18.4%, and depending on the procedure accounts for an additional cost between $14,000 and $50,000 USD per patient. Discussion. There was a significant deficit of the literature pertaining to the cost of revision surgery as compared with primary bariatric surgery. As such, the cycle of weight recidivism and bariatric revisions has not as of yet been introduced into any previous cost analysis of bariatric surgery.

Revisional bariatric surgery is more effective for improving obesity-related co-morbidities than it is for reinducing major weight loss

BACKGROUND

Patients having previous bariatric surgery are at risk for weight regain and return of co-morbidities. If an anatomic basis for the failure is identified, many surgeons advocate revision or conversion to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The aim of this study was to determine whether revisional bariatric surgery leads to sufficient weight loss and co-morbidity remission.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2005-2012, patients undergoing revision were entered into a prospectively maintained database. Perioperative outcomes, including complications, weight loss, and co-morbidity remission, were examined for all patients with a history of a previous vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients with a history of RYGB and 56 with a history of VBG were identified. Following the revisional procedure, the RYGB group experienced 35.8% excess weight loss (%EWL) and a 31.8% morbidity rate. For the VBG group, patients experienced a 46.2% %EWL from their weight before the revisional operation with a 51.8% morbidity rate. Co-morbidity remission rate was excellent. Diabetes (VBG:100%, RYGB: 85.7%), gastroesophageal reflux disease (VBG: 94.4%, RYGB: 80%), and hypertension (VBG: 74.2%, RYGB:60%) demonstrated significant improvement.

CONCLUSION

Revision of a failed RYGB or conversion of a VBG to a RYGB provides less weight loss and a higher complication rate than primary RYGB but provides an excellent opportunity for co-morbidity remission.

Outcomes of revisional procedures for insufficient weight loss or weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

The Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) performed laparoscopically (LRYGB) is the most frequently performed bariatric procedure in Belgium. However, late results in terms of weight loss or weight regain are inconsistent and may warrant a second procedure. This retrospective study analyzes the laparoscopic options for revisional surgery after LRYGB.

METHODS

Between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2009, 70 patients underwent a new laparoscopic procedure for poor weight loss or weight regain after LRYGB. The revisional procedure was performed a median of 2.6 years after the initial bypass operation. Fifty-eight patients were available for follow-up (82.9 %); 19 underwent distalization; and 39 a new restrictive procedure.

RESULTS

The mean mass index (BMI) before the revisional procedure was 39.1 + 11.3 kg/m(2) (30.8-51.8), down from 42.7 + 19.7 kg/m(2) (33.0-56.6) initially, which corresponded to a percentage of excess weight loss (EWL) of 12.4 + 9.3 % (-1.0-29.1). After the corrective procedure, with a follow-up of approximately 4 years, mean BMI was 29.6 + 12.4 kg/m(2) (18.0-45.5), for a significant additional percentage of EWL of 53.7 + 9.8 % (2.0-65.8). The overall complication rate was 20.7 %, and the reoperation rate was 7.3 %. The overall leak rate was 12.1 %. Patients suffering from leaks could consistently be treated conservatively or by stent placement. Two patients needed reconversion after distal bypass. The satisfaction index was good in just over 50 % of the patients.

CONCLUSION

Revisional laparoscopic surgery after RYGB performed for weight issues provides good additional weight loss but carries significant morbidity. Leaks can usually be handled non-surgically. Patient satisfaction is only fair.

Endoscopic revision (StomaphyX) versus formal surgical revision (gastric bypass) for failed vertical band gastroplasty

BACKGROUND

Weight regain secondary to VBG pouch dilation is a typical referral for Bariatric surgeons. In this study we compare an endoluminal pouch reduction (Stomaphyx) to RYGB for revision.

METHODS

A retrospective review was completed for patients with a previous VBG presenting with weight regain between 2003-2010.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were identified for study 23 RYGB, 14 StomaphyX. Significant post procedure BMI loss was seen in each cohort (RYGB, 47.7 ± 7 kg/m(2) to 35 ± 7 kg/m(2); StomaphyX 43 ± 10 kg/m(2) to 40 ± 9 kg/m(2), P = 0.0007). Whereas nausea and headache were the only complications observed in StomaphyX patients, the RYGB group had a 43.5% complication rate and 1 mortality. Complications following RYGB include: incisional hernia (13%), anastomotic leak (8.7%), respiratory failure (8.7%), fistula (8.7%), and perforation (4.35%). The median length of stay following RYGB was 6 days compared to 1.5 ± 0.5 days following StomaphyX.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that while RYGB revision may achieve greater weight loss, the complication rates and severity is discouraging. StomaphyX may be a safe alternative. Further technical modifications of the device and longer follow-up may clarify the role of this approach.

Case-matched analysis comparing outcomes of revisional versus primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is one of the most common approaches used to revise post-bariatric patients with inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain. Previous studies have analyzed the outcomes of open revisional RYGB versus primary RYGB, but no case-control matched analysis comparing revisional LRYGB versus primary LRYGB has been performed.

METHODS

Our cohort includes 37 consecutive patients who underwent revisional LRYGB because of unsatisfactory weight loss or weight regain matched in a 1:2 ratio with 74 control patients who underwent primary LRYGB. Matching included the following parameters: age, gender, preoperative body mass index and comorbidities (diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, and hypertension).

RESULTS

The revisional group had longer length of stay compared with the primary group (3.8 vs. 2.4 days, P = 0.02) and a higher conversion to laparotomy rate (10.8 vs. 0 %, P = 0.01). The revisional group had a higher 30-day morbidity compared with the primary group (27 vs. 8.1 %, P = 0.02). There were no deaths in both groups. The two groups had similar 30-day readmission and 30 day reoperation rates. At 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up, the revisional LRYGB group had significantly lower percent of excess weight loss (EWL) than the primary LRYGB group (3 months, 30 vs. 38.4, P = 0.001; 6 months, 36.3 vs. 52.9, P = 0.001; 12 months, 46.5 vs. 68.2, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional LRYGB is characterized by lower EWL and higher morbidity than primary LRYGB. However, our data suggest that revisional LRYGB is still capable of providing significant weight loss in these high-risk patients.