Revisional metabolic/bariatric surgery: a moral obligation

Statin use trajectories postbariatric surgery: a matched cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the most durable treatment of obesity and can reduce statin use.

OBJECTIVE

We compare statin use trajectories in patients with and without MBS.

METHODS

Adults with a body mass index ≥ 35kg/m2 were identified using a U.S. employer-based retrospective claims database. Individuals who had MBS were matched 1:1 with those who did not. Trajectories of statin use were stratified by statin use in the year before the index date and examined in the 2 years after the index date.

SETTING

University Hospital.

RESULTS

Sixteen thousand three hundred fifty-nine adults who had MBS and 16,359 matched adults who did not were analyzed. In both groups, 19.4% filled a statin prescription in the year before the index date. In the 2 years after the index date, individuals using statins remained similar at 20% (year 1) and 19% (year 2) among those who didn't have an MBS and decreased to 12.5% (year 1) and 9.3% (year 2) in the MBS cohort. Among baseline statin users, 35.4% of non-MBS and 60.4% of the MBS cohort stopped using statins within 2 years of the index date. Among statin naïve individuals at baseline, 9.6% of the non-MBS cohort started using statins within 2 years of the index date, compared to 2.6% of those who had MBS.

CONCLUSIONS

MBS results in a significant discontinuation of statins among baseline users, and significantly decreased the initiation of medications among individuals who were statin naive at baseline. This demonstrates that MBS is both a treatment and preventative measure for dyslipidemia.

Long-term outcomes and frequency of reoperative bariatric surgery beyond 15 years after gastric banding: a high band failure rate with safe revisions

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has had encouraging early results. However, intermediate and late results were discouraging, and LAGB is presently being replaced by stapled procedures. There is still ongoing debate whether LAGB should be abandoned altogether.

OBJECTIVE

To present our outcomes beyond 15-year follow-up after LAGB.

SETTING

Private hospital, Bern, Switzerland.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of patients receiving LAGB between 1997 and 2002 with minimum 15-year follow-up. Patient characteristics, co-morbidities, reoperative bariatric surgery (RBS), and weight trends were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 387 LAGB patients were identified. Of them, 342 (88.4%) had a minimum of 15 years of follow-up (range, 15-21 yr). There were 270 (78.9%) women with a mean age of 40.3 years (range, 15-62 yr) and body mass index (BMI) of 43.1 kg/m² (range, 30.0-60.1 kg/m²) and 72 (21.1%) men with a mean age of 41.2 years (range, 16-61 yr) and BMI of 43.6 kg/m² (range, 33.0-72.5 kg/m²). During follow-up, 283 (82.7%) patients underwent a mean of 3.3 reoperative bariatric operations (range, 1-5), with 224 (65.5%) converted to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). At the end of the study period, 96 (28%) patients still had a band in place. No deaths were recorded. At most recent follow-up after LAGB, mean excess BMI loss was 65.4% (range, -9.4% to 134.5%) with significant decrease in co-morbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 28% of patients had sufficient weight loss outcomes after LAGB alone and predictive selection criteria are lacking. The majority of LAGB operations fail even with close structured follow-up. RBS can be performed safely.

Re-operations after Secondary Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review

This paper reviews reoperations rates for short- and long-term complications following secondary bariatric procedures and need for further bariatric surgery. The search revealed 28 papers (1317 secondary cases) following at least 75 % of patients for 12 months or more. For adjustable gastric banding (AGB), rebanding had higher re-revisional rates than conversions into other procedures. Conversion of AGB to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had the highest number of short- (10.7 %) and long-term (22.0 %) complications. We estimated 194 additional reoperations per 1000 patients having a secondary procedure, 8.8 % needing tertiary surgery. Despite being poorly reported, risks of reoperations for long-term complications and tertiary bariatric surgery are higher than usually reported risks of short-term complications and should be taken into account when choosing a secondary bariatric procedure and for economic evaluations.

A comparison of revisional and primary bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery is an important component of addressing weight regain and complications following primary bariatric surgery. Owing to provincial need and the complexity of this patient population, a specialized multidisciplinary revision clinic was developed. We sought to characterize patients who undergo revision surgery and compare their outcomes with primary bariatric surgery clinic data.

METHODS

We completed a retrospective chart review of bariatric revision clinic patients compared with primary bariatric surgery patients from December 2009 to June 2014.

RESULTS

We reviewed the charts of 2769 primary bariatric clinic patients, 886 of whom had bariatric surgery, and 534 revision bariatric clinic patients, 83 of whom had revision surgery. Fewer revision clinic patients underwent surgery than primary clinic patients (22% v. 32%). The mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 44.7 ± 9.5 in revision patients compared with 45.7 ± 7.6 in primary bariatric surgery patients. Most revision patients had a prior vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG; 48%) or a laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB; 24%). Bands were removed in 36% of all LAGB patients presenting to clinic. Of the 134 procedures performed in the revision clinic, 83 were bariatric weight loss surgeries, and 51 were band removals. Revision clinic patients experienced a significant decrease in BMI (from 44.7 ± 9.5 to 33.8 ± 7.5, p < 0.001); their BMI at 12-month follow-up was similar to that of primary clinic patients (34.5 ± 7.0, p = 0.7). Complications were significantly more frequent in revision patients than primary patients (41% v. 15%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A bariatric revision clinic manages a wide variety of complex patients distinct from those seen in a primary clinic. Operative candidates at the revision clinic are chosen based on favourable medical, anatomic and psychosocial factors, keeping in mind the resource constraints of a public health care system.

Evaluation of the obesity surgery mortality risk score for the prediction of postoperative complications after primary and revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

The Obesity Surgery Mortality Risk Score (OS-MRS) is a validated instrument for mortality risk prediction in patients undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) procedures classifying patients into low risk (class A), intermediate risk (class B), and high risk (class C).

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the OS-MRS in predicting postoperative complications after LRYGB. Secondarily, the postoperative complication rate between primary and revisional LRYGB was systematically analyzed.

SETTING

The Obesity Center Amsterdam, located in a large teaching hospital, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

METHODS

The OS-MRS was applied to a consecutive database of patients who underwent LRYGB from November 2007 onwards. Postoperative complications were scored according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Revisional LRYGB was separately analyzed.

RESULTS

LRYGB was performed in 1667 patients either as a primary (81.5%) or revisional (18.5%) procedure. The majority (n = 1371, 82.2%) were female, mean age 44.6 (standard deviation 14.4) years and mean body mass index 44.2 (6.5) kg/m². Nine hundred and four (54.2%) were OS-MRS class A, 642 class B (38.5%), and 121 (7.3%) class C. Complications occurred in 143 (10.5%) and 44 (14.2%) patients after primary and revisional surgery, respectively. In both primary and revisional LRYGB, there was no association between complications and the OS-MRS classification. Subanalysis comparing primary with revisional LRYGB found a significant association between revisional surgery and the development of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo≥3) (P = .003) and mortality (P = .017).

CONCLUSION

The OS-MRS was not an accurate predictor for postoperative complications in patients who underwent primary or revisional LRYGB. As in other studies, revisional surgery is an independent risk factor for the development of severe complications.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band removal and outcome of subsequent revisional bariatric procedures: A retrospective review of 214 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) removal is required in cases of slippage, erosion, infection, intolerance, or failure in weight loss. The aim of the study was to follow up the patients who underwent band removal and analyze the outcome of subsequent revisional bariatric procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent LAGB removal during 3.5 years. All patients underwent a phone interview in early 2015. Patients were divided to three groups following band removal: without additional surgery, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or laparoscopic Roux-en Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), and Redo LAGB(Re-LAGB). Outcome of different revisional procedures was compared according to causes and symptoms before band removal, patient satisfaction, weight loss, quality of life (QOL) questionnaire, and the bariatric analysis and reporting outcome system II (BAROSII) score.

RESULTS

Overall 214 patients (73.8% females) with mean age of 41.9 years were enrolled in the study. The mean time between LAGB placement and removal was 81.0 months. Mean % estimated weight loss (%EWL) was 29.6 at time of band removal. There was no difference between groups in patient age, gender, BMI before LAGB, and most co-morbidities. Patients with 1-5 outpatient visits preferred additional surgery. Patients suffering from vomiting from 1 to 10 times per week preferred revision as LSG or LRYGB. Patients with lower BAROS score underwent LSG or LRYGB. Most of the patients with band intolerance underwent conversion to another bariatric procedure, while patients with band erosion and infected band preferred Re-LAGB. Most of the patients without band gained weight. There was a significant improvement in %EWL (39.9 vs 29.6), QOL (1.08 vs 0.07), and BAROS(2.82 vs-0.11) in patients who underwent additional bariatric surgery before and after band removal irrespective of surgery type.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient selection for different revisional bariatric procedures after LAGB removal is a main point for surgery success. This results in high patient satisfaction, EWL, and QOL. All options (Re-LAGB, LSG, LRYGB) are feasible and safe.