Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after failed gastric banding: is it really effective? Six years of follow-up

Outcomes of Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty Following Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Band: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The performance of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) in patients with prior laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has not been characterized.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective propensity score-matched study of ESG after LAGB at 2 centers with expertise in bariatric endoscopy. The primary outcome was total weight loss (TWL) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included TWL at 3 and 6 months, 12-month excess weight loss (EWL), procedural characteristics, predictors of TWL, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-six adults (88.5% female, age 50.8 y, BMI 36.5 kg/m 2 ) with prior LAGB (median duration 8 y) underwent ESG at a median of 3 years after LAGB removal. A 2:1 age-matched, sex-matched, and BMI-matched comparator group was created, comprising ESG patients from the same organization and time frame but without prior LAGB. TWL for the LAGB-to-ESG cohort versus the ESG-only cohort was 10.1±5.5% versus 13.0±4.4% at 3 months ( P =0.0256), 12.4±7.2% versus 16.0±5.4% at 6 months ( P =0.0375), and 12.7±8.2% versus 18.4±6.5% at 12 months ( P =0.0149). At 12 months, the LAGB-to-ESG cohort had an EWL of 52.5±50.0%, and 75% achieved TWL ≥10%. There was no association between TWL at 3, 6, or 12 months and the following traits: age or BMI at the time of ESG, patient sex, and time from LAGB removal to ESG. No serious adverse events occurred in either cohort.

CONCLUSION

ESG after LAGB facilitates safe and clinically meaningful weight loss but is attenuated compared to primary ESG.

Medium Term Outcomes of Revision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy after Gastric Banding: A Propensity Score Matched Study

PURPOSE

Revision bariatric surgery may be undertaken after weight loss failure and/or complications following primary bariatric surgery. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RLSG) after gastric banding (GB) to those of primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (PLSG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective, propensity-score matched study was conducted to compare between PLSG (control) patients and RLSG after GB (treatment) patients. Patients were matched using 2:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching without replacement. Patients were compared on weight loss outcomes and postoperative complications for up to five years.

RESULTS

144 PLSG patients were compared against 72 RLSG patients. At 36 months, PLSG patients had significantly higher mean %TWL than RLSG patients (27.4 ± 8.6 [9.3-48.9]% vs. 17.9 ± 10.2 [1.7-36.3]%, p < 0.01). At 60 months, both groups had similar mean %TWL (16.6 ± 8.1 [4.6-31.3]% vs. 16.2 ± 6.0 [8.8-22.4)]%, p > 0.05). Early functional complication rates were slightly higher with PLSG (13.9% vs. 9.7%), but late functional complication rates were comparatively higher with RLSG (50.0% vs. 37.5%). The differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Both early (0.7% vs 4.2%) and late (3.5% vs 8.3%) surgical complication rates were lower in PLSG patients compared to RLSG patients but did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

RLSG after GB has poorer weight loss outcomes than PLSG in the short-term. Although RLSG may carry higher risks of functional complications, the safety of RLSG and PLSG are overall comparable.

One- versus two-stage conversions of adjustable gastric bands: an analysis of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric bands (AGB) are converted at high rates to secondary bariatric procedures. The available literature on the safety of converting in 1- versus 2-stage processes has not included large databases.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of a 1- versus 2-stage conversion of AGB.

SETTING

Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP), United States.

METHODS

The MBSAQIP database for the years 2020 and 2021 was evaluated. One-stage AGB conversions were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes and database variables. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine whether 1- or 2-stage conversions were associated with 30-day serious complications.

RESULTS

There were 12,085 patients who underwent conversion from previous AGB to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (63.0%) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (37.0%), of whom 41.0% underwent conversion in 1 stage and 59.0% in 2 stages. Patients who underwent 2-stage conversions had higher body mass indexes. Rates of serious complications were higher for patients undergoing RYGB compared with SG (5.2% versus 3.3%, P < .001) but were similar between 1-stage and 2-stage conversions in both cohorts. In both cohorts, there were similar rates of anastomotic leaks, postoperative bleeding, reoperation, and readmissions. Mortality was rare and similar between conversion groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in outcomes or complications in 30 days between 1- and 2-stage conversions of AGB to RYGB or SG. Conversions to RYGB have higher complication and mortality rates than to SG, but there was no statistically significant difference between staged procedures. One- and 2-stage conversions from AGB are equivalent in safety.

Comparison of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy for Revision of Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding: 5-Year Outcomes

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is in continuous decline due to low effectiveness and high reoperation rates. This study aims to evaluate outcomes of converting LAGB to one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for insufficient weight loss or weight regain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective comparative study, based on prospective registry database of a tertiary center (2012-2019).

RESULTS

In all, 276 LAGB patients were converted to OAGB (n = 125) and SG (n = 151). Body mass index (BMI) at revision was 41.3 ± 6.6 and 42.3 ± 9.6 kg/m2 (P = 0.34) in OAGB and SG patients, respectively. Time interval was longer in OAGB patients (p < 0.001). Major early complication rates were comparable (2.4% and 4%; p = 0.46). At 5-years, OAGB patients had lower BMI (31.9 vs. 34.5 kg/m2; p = 0.002), and a higher total weight loss (25.1% vs. 18.8%; p = 0.003), compared with SG patients. Resolution of type 2 diabetes was higher in OAGB patients (93.3% vs. 66.6%; p = 0.047), while resolution of hypertension was not significantly different (84.6% and 80.5%; p = 0.68). Revision due to delayed complications was required in five (4%) OAGB patients and nine (8.6%) SG patients (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

OAGB for revision after LAGB due to insufficient weight loss or weight regain is safe, and has better effectiveness in weight reduction and resolution of type 2 diabetes than SG.

Long-Term Matched Comparison of Primary and Revisional Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Reports of long-term (> 5-15-year) outcomes assessing the safety and efficacy of primary revisional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are few.

METHODS

Retrospective long-term comparisons of primary (pLSG) and revisional (rLSG) procedures were matched for gender, age ± 5 years, and body mass index (BMI) ± 5 kg/m². Weight loss, associated medical condition status, and patient satisfaction were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between May 1, 2006, and December 31, 2016, 194 matched patients with severe obesity (mean BMI 44.1 ± 6.7 kg/m²; age 44.2 ± 10.0 years, 67.0% female) underwent pLSG (n = 97) or rLSG (n = 97) and were followed for a mean 12.1 ± 1.5 vs 7.6 ± 2.1 years. Respective mean weight regain from nadir was 15.0 ± 14.4 kg vs 11.9 ± 12.2 kg. Respective percent mean total weight loss and excess weight loss were 20.9 ± 12.7% and 51.8 ± 33.1%, and 18.3 ± 12.8% and 43.4 ± 31.6% at last follow-up, with no significant difference between groups. Resolution of type 2 diabetes (HbA1_C < 6.5%, off medications) was 23.1% vs 11.1%; hypertension 36.0% vs 16.0%; and hyperlipidemia 37.1% vs 35.3%. Patients in the pLSG group were significantly more satisfied with LSG (59.8% vs 43.3%, p < 0.05) and more likely to choose the procedure again.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in long-term weight loss or associated medical condition outcomes in matched pLSG and rLSG patients.

Long-term outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure after failed gastric band: a multicenter cross-matched cohort study

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is the bariatric procedure most likely subject to revisional surgery. Both laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) represent viable options, but the long-term results are still lacking. In 2014, we published the 2-year follow-up of our multicenter cohort of revisional LSG after failed LAGB. Evaluate the long-term follow-up (median 9.3 years) of the same cohort of patients. University and primary-care hospitals, Italy. We retrospectively examined a prospectively maintained database of the previously published multicenter cohort of 56 patients who underwent LSG after failed LAGB between 2008-2011. The control group included cross-matched non-revisional LSGs. The primary endpoint was weight loss, secondary endpoints co-morbidities, and the need for further bariatric surgery. The study group included 44 patients and the control group 56. We found %EWL 53% Vs. 67% (p = .021), %EBMIL (54 Vs. 68%, p = .018), %TWL (26 Vs. 34%, p = .002). We also found more severe GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease) symptoms in the revisional than in the primary group (9.0 vs. 1.8% mild and 23.0 vs. 3.0% severe). Ten patients from the revisional group (22.7%) vs. eight in the primary group (13%) underwent further bariatric surgery (LRYGB). Our results showed less favorable weight loss in revisional than primary LSG after LABG, higher prevalence of GERD, and a more frequent need for further revisional surgery. Despite the study's limitations, the present data suggest that the long-term outcomes may offset the possible reduced short-term complication rate after revisional sleeve gastrectomy for a failed LABG.

Outcomes of Two-Step Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Reasons for the Gastric Banding Explantation Matter

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the reason for gastric band explantation would influence percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) following revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

MATERIALS & METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study, whose data are maintained in a prospective surgical database. The study period was from January 2012 to March 2017. Revisional surgeries were performed in a two-step manner, namely, first surgery LAGB explantation and second surgery (RYGB or SG). Two-way between-groups analysis of variance was used to examine effects of reason for band explantation (failed versus complication) and type of revisional surgery (RYGB versus SG) on %EWL at 10 months, 1 and 2 years.

RESULTS

Cohort included 171 patients-146 women (85.4%) and 25 men, median age 51 years (range 22-76). Band-related complications accounted for 55% of explantations. Overall, 95 patients (56%) underwent a revisional RYGB, and 76 patients underwent a revisional SG. There was no difference in age or gender in terms of reason for band explantation or choice of revisional surgery. There was no difference in morbidity between the two groups (SG 2.6% versus RYGB 4.2%; p = .464). Patients undergoing revisional RYGB for failed weight loss had a significantly lower %EWL at 2 years compared to patients undergoing an SG for failed weight loss (p = .014) or an RYGB for band-related complications (p = .021).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing revisional RYGB following band explantation for failed weight loss have a significantly lower %EWL at 2 years compared to patients undergoing an SG for failed weight loss or an RYGB for band-related complications.