Reoperative bariatric surgery for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Cost-Effectiveness of Sleeve Gastrectomy and Gastric Bypass as Revisional Surgery on Antidiabetic Reimbursement: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Objective

This study compared the effectiveness of 4 main revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) sequences after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB), on the reimbursement of antidiabetic treatments in France.

Background

Few large-scale prospective cohort studies have assessed the changes in antidiabetic treatments after RBS.

Method

This nationwide observational population-based cohort study analyzed data from the French National Health Insurance Database. All patients who underwent primary SG and AGB in France between January 2012 and December 2014 were included and followed up until December 31, 2020. The changes in categories and costs of reimbursed antidiabetic treatments across different RBS sequences were assessed (presented as follows: bariatric surgery (BS)-RBS).

Results

Among the 107,088 patients who underwent BS, 6396 underwent RBS, 2400 SG-GBP (SG converted to gastric bypass [GBP] during follow-up), 2277 AGB-SG, 1173 AGB-GBP, and 546 SG-SG. Pre-RBS insulin was used in 10 (2.9%), 4 (0.9%), 8 (2.4%), and 10 (2.6%) patients, respectively. Two years after RBS, the treatment discontinuation or decrease (the change of treatment to a lighter one category rates [eg, insulin to bi/tritherapy]) was 47%, 47%, 49%, and 34%, respectively. Four years after RBS, the median annual cost per patient compared with baseline was lower (P < 0.01) for all sequences, except SG-SG (P = 0.24). The most notable effect concerned AGB-GBP (median of more than 220 euros to 0).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the positive impact of RBS over a 4-year follow-up period on antidiabetic treatments reimbursement, through the reduction or discontinuation of treatments and a significant decrease in costs per patient.

Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal bypass (SADI-S) as Primary or Two-Stage Surgery: Mid-Term Outcomes of a Single Canadian Bariatric Center

PURPOSE

Compare primary single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) and two-stage SADI after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in terms of weight loss, reduction/remission of comorbidities, and morbidity.

METHODS

Retrospective study including 179 patients treated laparoscopically between 2016 and 2020. A 50Fr bougie was used for the SG in the primary SADI-S (group 1) and 36/40Fr for the two-stage procedure (group 2). The duodeno-ileal anastomosis was performed at 250 cm from the ileocecal valve and at least 2 cm after the pylorus.

RESULTS

Mean age was 44.1 years old, and there were 148 women and 31 men. There were 67 (37.4%) patients in group 1 and 112 (62.6%) in group 2, with 67% completing the 4-year follow-up. Mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 51.1 kg/m2 and 44.6 kg/m2 for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Preoperative comorbidities were obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia in 103 (57.5%), 93 (52%), 65 (36.3%), and 58 (32.4%) of cases. At 4 years postoperatively, excess weight loss (EWL) was 67.5% in group 1 and 67% in group 2 (p = 0.1005). Both groups had good comorbidity remission rates. Early postoperative morbidity rate was 10.4% in group 1 and 3.6% in group 2. In group1, there were mostly postoperative intra-abdominal hematomas managed conservatively (n = 4). Two revisional surgeries were needed for duodeno-ileal anastomosis leaks. Postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), daily diarrhea, vitamin, and protein levels were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Both types of strategies are efficient at short and mid-term outcomes. Preoperative criteria will inform surgeon decision between a primary and a two-stage strategy.

Long-term follow-up of a cohort with post sleeve gastrectomy leaks: results of endoscopic treatment and salvage surgery

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most performed bariatric procedure worldwide. The most challenging postoperative complication is gastric leak. The objectives of this study are to examine the efficacy and morbidity of different therapeutic strategies addressing leakage, and the long-term outcomes of a cohort of LSG leaks.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients treated for LSG leaks between September 2014 and January 2023 at our high-volume bariatric surgery center was performed.

RESULTS

The charts of 37 patients (29 women and 8 men) were reviewed, with a mean age of 43 years and a median follow-up of 24 months. The mean preoperative body mass index was 45.1 kg/m2. Overall, 30/37 (81%) patients were successfully treated with endoscopic management, and 7/37 (19%) ultimately underwent salvage surgery. If the leak was diagnosed earlier than 6 weeks, endoscopic treatment had a 97% success rate. The median number of endoscopic procedures was 2 per patient, and included internal pigtails, stents, septoplasty, endoluminal vacuum therapy and over-the-scope clips. Complications included stent-related ulcers (10), esophageal stenosis requiring endoscopic dilatations (4), stent migrations (2) and kinking requiring repositioning (1), and internal pigtail migration (3). Revisional surgery consisted of proximal gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y esophago-jejunal anastomosis, Roux-en-Y fistulo-jejunostomy or classic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass proximal to the gastric stricture. In 62% of the cases, the axis/caliber of the LSG was abnormal. Beyond 4 attempts, endoscopy was unsuccessful. The success rate of endoscopic management dropped to 25% when treatment was initiated more than 45 days after the index surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Purely endoscopic management was successful in 81% of cases; with 97% success rate if diagnosis earlier than 6 weeks. After four failed endoscopic procedures, a surgical approach should be considered. Delayed diagnosis appears to be a significant risk factor for failure of endoscopic treatment.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy as revisional bariatric procedures after adjustable gastric banding: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The frequency of revisional bariatric surgery is increasing, but its effectiveness and safety are not yet fully established. The aim of our study was to compare short-term outcomes of primary (pRYGB and pSG) and revisional bariatric surgeries (rRYGB and rSG).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study assessing all patients submitted to primary and revisional (after a failed AGB) RYGB and SG in 2019. Each patient was followed-up at 6 months and 12 months after surgery. We compared pRYGB vs. rRYGB, pSG vs. rSG and rRYGB vs. rSG on weight loss, surgical complications, and resolution of comorbidities.

RESULTS

We assessed 494 patients, of which 18.8% had undergone a revisional procedure. Higher weight loss at 6 and 12 months was observed in patients undergoing primary vs. revisional procedures. Patients submitted to rRYGB lost more weight than those with rSG (%EWL 12 months = 82.6% vs. 69.0%, p < 0.001). Regarding the resolution of obesity-related comorbidities, diabetes resolution was more frequent in pRYGB than rRYGB (54.2% vs. 25.0%; p = 0.038). Also, 41.7% of the patients who underwent rRYGB had dyslipidemia resolution vs. 0% from the rSG group (p = 0.035). Dyslipidemia resolution was also more common in pSG vs. rSG (68.6% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.001). No significant differences in surgical complications were found.

CONCLUSION

Revisional bariatric surgery is effective and safe treating obesity and related comorbidities after AGB. Primary procedures appear to be associated with better weight loss outcomes. Further prospective studies are needed to better understand the role of revisional bariatric surgery.

Weight loss specific to indication, remission of diabetes, and short-term complications after sleeve gastrectomy conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most frequently performed bariatric procedure worldwide. Long-term complications such as insufficient weight loss (IWL) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) may necessitate SG conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). The aim of this review was to determine the indication-specific weight loss and diabetes remission after SG conversion to RYGB (STOBY). Our objective was to extract all available published data on indication for conversion, weight loss, remission of diabetes, and short-term complications after STOBY. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting outcomes following STOBY. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. The search identified 44 relevant studies. Overall short-term (12-mo) excess weight loss (EWL) was 54.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46%-63%) in 23 studies (n = 712) and total weight loss (TWL) was 19.9% (95% CI, 14%-25%) in 21 studies (n = 740). For IWL, short-term (12-mo) pooled weight loss outcomes were 53.9% EWL (95% CI, 48%-59%) in 14 studies (n = 295) and 22.7% TWL (95% CI, 17%-28%) in 12 studies (n = 219), and medium-term (2-5 yr) outcomes were 45.8% EWL (95% CI, 38%-53%) in 7 studies (n = 154) and 20.6% TWL (95% CI, 15%-26%) in 9 studies (n = 206). Overall diabetes remission was 53% (95% CI, 33%-72%), and the perioperative complication rate was 8.2% (95% CI, 7.6%-8.7%). Revisional SG conversion to RYGB for IWL can achieve good weight loss outcomes and diabetes remission.

2022 American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) Indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery

MAJOR UPDATES TO 1991 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH GUIDELINES FOR BARIATRIC SURGERY: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is recommended for individuals with a body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m2, regardless of presence, absence, or severity of co-morbidities.MBS should be considered for individuals with metabolic disease and BMI of 30-34.9 kg/m2.BMI thresholds should be adjusted in the Asian population such that a BMI >25 kg/m2 suggests clinical obesity, and individuals with BMI >27.5 kg/m2 should be offered MBS.Long-term results of MBS consistently demonstrate safety and efficacy.Appropriately selected children and adolescents should be considered for MBS.(Surg Obes Relat Dis 2022; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2022.08.013 ) © 2022 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. All rights reserved.

2022 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO): Indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery

Major updates to 1991 National Institutes of Health guidelines for bariatric surgery.

Analysis of the Factors Contributing to Bariatric Success After Laparoscopic Redo Bariatric Procedures: Results from Multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS)

INTRODUCTION

With continuously growing number of redo bariatric surgeries (RBS), it is necessary to look for factors determining success of redo-surgeries.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study analyzed consecutive patients who underwent RBS in 12 referral bariatric centers in Poland from 2010 to 2020. The study included 529 patients. The efficacy endpoints were percentage of excessive weight loss (%EWL) and remission of hypertension (HT) and/or type 2 diabetes (T2D).

RESULTS

Group 1: weight regain Two hundred thirty-eight of 352 patients (67.6%) exceeded 50% EWL after RBS. The difference in body mass index (BMI) pre-RBS and lowest after primary procedure < 10.6 kg/m2 (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 1.43-3.80, p = 0.001) was independent factor contributing to bariatric success after RBS, i.e., > 50% EWL. Group 2: insufficient weight loss One hundred thirty of 177 patients (73.4%) exceeded 50% EWL after RBS. The difference in BMI pre-RBS and lowest after primary procedure (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.64-0.89, p = 0.001) was independent factors lowering odds for bariatric success. Group 3: insufficient control of obesity-related diseases Forty-three of 87 patients (49.4%) achieved remission of hypertension and/or type 2 diabetes. One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) as RBS was independent factor contributing to bariatric success (OR 7.23, 95% CI: 1.67-31.33, p = 0.008), i.e., complete remission of HT and/or T2D.

CONCLUSIONS

RBS is an effective method of treatment for obesity-related morbidity. Greater weight regain before RBS was minimizing odds for bariatric success in patients operated due to weight regain or insufficient weight loss. OAGB was associated with greater chance of complete remission of hypertension and/or diabetes.

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.

Comparative Effectiveness of Roux-en Y Gastric Bypass Versus Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy for Sustained Remission of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery results in rapid weight loss and resolution of comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to determine whether the type of surgical procedure-vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB)-was associated with sustained remission from T2DM, and to identify other independent predictors of sustained remission.

METHODS

Using the IBM MarketScan database of privately insured patients in the United States, we performed a retrospective cohort study on individuals aged 18-65 y with T2DM on hypoglycemic medication, who underwent either VSG or RYGB from 2010 to 2016. Remission was defined as no refill of antidiabetic medication 180 d after a patient's medication was expected to run out and recurrence as medication refill after at least 180 d of remission.

RESULTS

Of 5119 patients in our cohort, 4127 (81%) experienced remission of T2DM, and 816 (19.8%) of the 4127 patients experienced recurrence. Patients who underwent RYGB had a 24% (HR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.32) increased probability of achieving remission compared with VSG. RYGB had a 36% (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.74) decreased risk of recurrence compared with VSG. A higher number of diabetic medications at the time of surgery and a higher Charlson index score were associated with decreased probability of remission and an increased risk of recurrence of T2DM.

CONCLUSIONS

While both procedures are initially effective, RYGB may be better than VSG at providing lasting remission of T2DM.

How Far Can Our Expectations Go on Revisional Bariatric Surgery After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding?

PURPOSE

Bariatric surgery has proven its effectiveness in the treatment of obesity and related comorbidities. However, several procedures may be required to treat this chronic disease and/or complications after bariatric surgery. The most frequent revisional surgeries performed after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (AGB) have been Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The aim of this study is to compare medium-term outcomes of primary and revisional bariatric procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Single institution, matched case-control study of obese patients submitted to bariatric surgery, divided into four groups of 50 patients: (A) primary RYGB; (B) primary SG; (C) revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB) after failed laparoscopic AGB; (D) revisional sleeve gastrectomy (rSG) after failed laparoscopic AGB. Demographic variables, surgical procedures characteristics and complications, weight loss outcomes and resolution of comorbidities were compared.

RESULTS

Mortality and morbidity were comparable between primary and revisional procedures. Weight loss outcomes were inferior in patients submitted to rRYGB when compared to those submitted to RYGB, with no significant differences found when comparing the other groups. Regarding comorbidities' outcomes, only patients submitted to rSG had lower odds of comorbidities' improvement. Patients submitted to rRYGB had an odd 7 times higher of comorbidities' improvement than those submitted to rSG, independent of weight loss outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Revisional surgeries are safe procedures with adequate weight loss outcomes in this difficult set of patients. The choice of revisional procedure may not influence weight loss outcomes, but rRYGB seems to be a better option regarding comorbidities' resolution.

Single-Anastomosis Sleeve Ileal (SASI) Bypass: Hopes and Concerns after a Two-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Single-anastomosis sleeve ileal (SASI) bypass is a simplification of sleeve gastrectomy with transit bipartition. Both share a metabolic foundation through early postprandial ileal brake, and SASI bypass has the advantages of shorter operative time and less incidence of internal herniation. This study evaluates the safety and outcome of SASI bypass with 2-year follow-up.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent SASI bypass in the period between June 2016 and January 2019. The primary outcome was weight loss and diabetic remission.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-two patients underwent SASI bypass with a mean age of 37.4 ± 15 years and a mean body mass index of 50.1 ± 7.7 kg/m². Thirteen patients (4%) had early major postoperative complications. The 1-year percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) was 86.9 ± 9.2, and diabetic remission rate was 98.2%. The 2-year %EWL was 96.7 ± 5, and diabetic remission rate was 97.9%. Twenty-six patients had gastroesophageal reflux that improved in 21 (80.7%) patients, remained stationary in 4 (15.4%) patients, and worsened in one patient who required reversal. One patient (0.3%) had severe protein-energy malnutrition and is prepared for reversal. Technical variations had no significant impact on %EWL or diabetic remission.

CONCLUSION

SASI bypass had a promising outcome in terms of 2-year %EWL, diabetic remission, and improvement of preoperative GERD. However, stationary or progressive course of GERD is a substantial possibility. Although the double-outlet for the gastric content allows duodenal access, it may be an obstacle to the standardization of postoperative care. The double-outlet is not a guarantee for absence of malnutrition.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Perioperative Nutrition, Metabolic, and Nonsurgical Support of Patients Undergoing Bariatric Procedures - 2019 Update: Cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), Obesity Medicine Association (OMA), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Boards of Directors in adherence with the AACE 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPGs, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include: contextualization in an adiposity-based chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current health care arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory, with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

The incidence and determinants of bariatric reoperations: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is the strongest evidence-based treatment available for obesity, but the long-term morbidity and durability of these procedures is being increasingly scrutinized.

OBJECTIVE

To report the incidence, timing, indications, and risk factors for bariatric reoperations.

SETTING

A state-wide, multicenter, retrospective study.

METHODS

Using the Western Australian Department of Health Data Linkage Unit, all patients undergoing an index bariatric procedure where identified across a 10-year period (2007-2016).

RESULTS

Of 24,766 patients who underwent bariatric surgery, 5001 patients (20.2%) required at least 1 bariatric reoperation. The 5-yearly rates were 19.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.0%-20.2%) for a first revision, 58.2% (95%CI, 56.6%-59.8%) for a subsequent second revision, 38.3% (95%CI, 35.4%-41.2%) for a subsequent third revision, and 45.2% (95%CI, 39.9%-50.5%) for a subsequent fourth revision. Surgical complications (67.4%) were the main indication for any bariatric reoperation ahead of weight-related causes (32.6%). In a Cox regression analysis, being younger, female, without private health insurance, and having a gastric band as the initial bariatric procedure were all significant risk factors for bariatric reoperations. Compared with bariatric patients needing only an index procedure, patients requiring bariatric reoperations also had higher postoperative incidence rate ratios of endoscopic (incidence rate ratio 2.4; 95%CI, 2.3-2.5) and body contouring (incidence rate ratio 3.8; 95%CI, 3.5-4.1) procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing bariatric surgery had a high incidence of bariatric reoperations, predominantly for surgical complications. Of those patients who required bariatric reoperations, there were additional high rates of recurrent bariatric surgery, postoperative endoscopy, and body contouring procedures.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutrition, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of patients undergoing bariatric procedures - 2019 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPG) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, the Obesity Medicine Association, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists boards of directors in adherence to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPG, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include contextualization in an adiposity-based, chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based, and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current healthcare arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence-based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Effect of Gastrogastric Fistula Closure in Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has been shown to significantly improve glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). The formation of a gastrogastric fistula (GGF) allows nutrients to pass through the native route, rather than bypassing the duodenum in typical RYGB configuration. We sought to evaluate the effect of revisional bariatric surgery for known GGF on control of diabetes.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of a single academic institution was performed to identify patients who had T2DM at the time of corrective surgery for a GGF. Baseline characteristics, and postoperative outcomes including changes in body mass index (BMI), glycated hemoglobin, fasting blood glucose (FBG), and diabetes medications were assessed.

RESULTS

Ten patients were identified with GGF who had T2DM at the time of corrective surgery. Patients had a male-to-female ratio of 2:3, a mean age of 59.2 ± 10 years, a mean baseline BMI of 38.1 ± 17.6 kg/m², and a median duration of 9 years (interquartile range 6-14) from initial RYGB to revision. At a mean follow-up of 14.9 ± 8.5 months, a mean reduction in BMI of 4.9 ± 6 kg/m² was associated with a significant mean reduction in FBG (167.1 ± 88.2 vs. 106.1 ± 20.4 mg/dL, p = 0.04) and number of diabetes medications (1.4 ± 0.8 vs. 0.7 ± 0.7, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In patients with diabetes and GGF, a corrective surgery for closure of fistula and restoration of bypass anatomy results in improvement of glucose control and status of diabetes medications. This finding can highlight the potential metabolic significance of duodenal exclusion.