Second-stage duodenal switch for sleeve gastrectomy failure: A matched controlled trial

Is single anastomosis duodenoileal bypass (SADI) an effective option for conversional surgery following sleeve gastrectomy? A comprehensive review and revised scope of current literature

BACKGROUND

Conversional surgery following sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is required in about 20 % of patients due to suboptimal outcomes. Single anastomosis duodenoileal bypass (SADI) has emerged as an option for such cases, though long-term outcomes remain unclear. This review analyzed available data on SADI as a conversional or second-stage procedure after SG.

METHODS

A systematic search across PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus included studies on adult patients who underwent SADI as a conversional or second-stage surgery following SG, with a minimum of 12 months' follow-up up to July 2024.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies involving 867 patients examined weight loss, comorbidity resolution, postoperative complications, and nutritional deficiencies. Results showed a total weight loss (TWL) of 24 % in the first year post-revision, with a trend toward weight stabilization or regain over two years. Maximum TWL (27 %) occurred at 24 months, decreasing to 24 % at 60 months. Average follow-up of 27 months showed remission rates for type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia at 68 %, 53 %, and 37 %, respectively. Short-term morbidity within 30 days was 8 %, including a 5 % rate of anastomotic leaks or fistulas and a 5 % reoperation rate. Overall mortality was 2 %.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, SADI shows promise as a safe and effective mid-term conversional surgery after SG with suboptimal results. However, further studies are needed to confirm its long-term safety and effectiveness.

Long-term results of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (SADI) as revisional procedures after failed sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic literature review and pooled analysis

PURPOSE

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) has flourished during the last decades in many countries, due to suboptimal weight loss or long-term complications of primary bariatric surgery. Restrictive procedures, and in particular sleeve gastrectomy (SG), although widely performed as primary bariatric surgery, seems particularly prone to need surgical revision for the above-mentioned reasons during long-term follow-up. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the long-term (5-year) safety and efficacy between Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (SADI) after 'failed' SG.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed from 2007 to September 2024. Articles were included if SADI or RYGB were performed as RBS after 'failed SG' with follow-up at least 5 years. Pooled analysis was performed to summarize the data.

RESULTS

Among the seven studies eligible and included in this review, the SADI procedure showed comparable results to RYGB in terms of weight loss, nutritional deficiencies, and resolution of comorbidities during the long-term follow-up. However, RYGB proved superior in terms of remission of reflux disease and other functional problems after SG.

CONCLUSIONS

The present review found that SADI seems to be a promising and suitable method for suboptimal weight loss after SG, with comparable or even better results to RYGB after 5-year follow-up.

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.

Outcome of Revisional Bariatric Surgery After Failed Sleeve Gastrectomy: a German Multicenter Study

PURPOSE

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is a common bariatric procedure that has been shown to be effective in both the short and long term, but it is not without risks, some of which necessitate revision or redo surgery (RS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

GBSR (German Bariatric Surgery Registry) data were evaluated in this multicenter analysis. Short-term results (1-year follow-up) of RS (Re-Sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, RYGB, Omega-loop gastric bypass, OLGB, and duodenal switch, DS) following primary SG (n = 27939) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of PSG patients, 7.9% (n=2195) needed revision surgery. Nine hundred ninety-four patients underwent the aforementioned four surgical procedures (95 with R-SG, 665 with RYGB, 141 with OLGB, and 93 DS). Loss of follow-up within 1 year 52.44%. The most common reasons for RS were weight regain and/or a worsening of preexisting comorbidities. Regarding the operating time, R-SG was the shortest of the four procedures, and DS was the longest. In general, there were no significant advantages of one procedure over another in terms of complication incidence in these categories. However, certain complications were seen more often after R-SG and DS than with other redo procedures. There were significant differences in BMI reduction 1 year after surgery (RYGB: 5.9; DS: 10.1; OLGB: 9.1; and R-SG: 9.1; p<0.001). GERD, hypertension, and sleep apnea demonstrated statistically significant comorbidity remission. Diabetes exhibited non-significant differences.

CONCLUSION

According to the findings of our study, all revision surgeries effectively resolved comorbidities, promoted weight loss, and lowered BMI. Due to the disparate outcomes obtained by various methods, this study cannot recommend a particular redo method as the gold standard. Selecting a procedure should consider the redo surgery's aims, the rationale for the revision, the patient's current state, and their medical history.

Long-term Follow-up 15 Years After Duodenal Switch or Gastric Bypass for Super Obesity: a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

In super obesity, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) may be insufficient why some surgeons advocate biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS), a more malabsorptive procedure. There is a paucity of evidence regarding results beyond 10 years, especially after BPD/DS. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the long-term outcome of BPD/DS, and RYGB in patients with super obesity, i.e., body mass index (BMI) > 50 kg/m2.

METHODS

This is a 13- to 17-year follow-up study of a single-center, single-blinded randomized trial in which 47 patients (BMI > 48 and eligible for bariatric surgery) were randomized 1:1 to BPD/DS and RYGB (25 men, 24 BPD/DS, 39.1 ± 9.9 years, BMI 54.5 ± 6.1 kg/m2). The primary outcome was weight loss. The study was financed by Swedish governmental funding of clinical research (ALF).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10940791.

RESULTS

Thirty-four (18 BPD/DS) of the living 42 patients (81.0%) participated. BPD/DS resulted in higher BMI loss (20.4 ± 7.9 vs. 12.4 ± 8.6, p = .008) and higher percent of total body weight loss (37.5% ± 12.2 vs. 22.8% ± 14.8, p = .004). BPD/DS was associated with lower fasting glucose, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) as well as lower hemoglobin. Adverse events were more common after BPD/DS (2.7 vs. 0.9 per patient, p = .004). The global assessment tool BAROS (Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System) demonstrated superior scores for BPD/DS (p = .047).

CONCLUSION

When compared to RYGB, BPD/DS results in superior weight loss and metabolic control as well as superior BAROS score, however, at the cost of more adverse events.

Mid-Term Outcomes After Conversion Procedures Following Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

PURPOSE

In the long term, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) may be associated with insufficient weight loss (IWL), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and persistence or relapse of associated medical problems. This study's objective is to present mid-term results regarding weight loss (WL), evolution of associated medical problems, and reoperation rate of patients who underwent a conversion after SG.

METHODS

Retrospective single-center analysis of patients with a minimal follow-up of 2 years after conversion.

RESULTS

In this series of 549 SGs, 84 patients (15.3%) underwent a conversion, and 71 met inclusion criteria. They were converted to short biliopancreatic limb Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (short BPL RYGB) (n = 28, 39.4%), biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS) (n = 19, 26.8%), long biliopancreatic limb Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (long BPL RYGB) (n = 17, 23.9%), and re-sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) (n = 7, 9.9%). Indications were GERD (n = 24, 33.8%), IWL (n = 23, 32.4%), IWL + GERD (n = 22, 31.0%), or stenosis/kinking of the sleeve (n = 2, 2.8%). The mean pre-revisional body mass index (BMI) was 38.0 ± 7.5 kg/m2. The mean follow-up time after conversion was 5.1 ± 3.1 years. The overall percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) was greatest after BPD/DS (36.6%) and long BPL RYGB (32.9%) compared to RSG (20.0%; p = 0.004; p = 0.049). In case of GERD, conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) led to a resolution of symptoms in 79.5%. 16.9% of patients underwent an additional revisional procedure.

CONCLUSION

In the event of IWL after SG, conversion to BPD/DS provides a significant and sustainable additional WL. Conversion to RYGB leads to a reliable symptom control in patients suffering from GERD after SG.

Conversion of gastric sleeve to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: overall outcomes and predictors of below-average weight loss

BACKGROUND

Conversion of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has been utilized to promote further weight loss, but results are variable in available literature.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate outcomes of SG to RYGB conversion for weight loss and to identify predictors of below-average weight loss.

SETTING

University-affiliated hospital, United States.

METHODS

Chart review was performed of our patients who underwent SG to RYGB conversion from November 1, 2013, to November 1, 2020. Primary outcomes were below-average percent excess weight loss (%EWL) at 1 and 2 years. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for preconversion demographics to evaluate their relationship to the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients underwent conversion from SG to RYGB with weight loss as a goal. One-year data was available for 47 patients. The average %EWL at 1 year was 41.5%. Twenty-six patients had below-average %EWL at 1 year. Interval to conversion <2 years (OR = 4.41, 95% CI [1.28,15.17], P = .019) and preconversion body mass index (BMI) >40 (OR = 4.00, 95% CI [1.17,13.73], P = .028) were statistically significant predictors of below-average 1-year %EWL. Two-year data was available for 36 patients. The average %EWL at 2 years was 30.8%. Seventeen patients had below-average %EWL at 2 years. Evaluated demographics were not statistically significant predictors of below-average 2-year %EWL.

CONCLUSIONS

Following SG to RYGB conversion, %EWL outcomes are lower at 1 year (41.5%) and 2 years (30.8%) than reported values for primary RYGB. Interval to conversion <2 years and preconversion BMI >40 are predictors of below-average 1-year weight loss after conversion.

Duodenal Switch Conversion in Non-responders or Weight Recurrence Patients

INTRODUCTION

Several modalities have been proposed to tackle insufficient weight loss and weight regain after bariatric surgery; we aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of duodenal switch conversion as a salvage procedure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from patients who underwent duodenal switch conversions (n = 50) were retrospectively studied. Excess weight loss % and total body weight loss % were compared between primary procedure and duodenal switch conversion. Overall complication, emergency department visits, readmissions, reoperation, and mortality rates were described, analyzed, and compared to the current literature.

RESULTS

Every excess weight loss % and total body weight loss % comparison at 6, 12, and 24 months, demonstrated a statistically significant superiority in weight loss after duodenal switch conversion (p < 0.05). The mean operative time of adjustable gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (1 and 2 stages) conversions to duodenal switch were 208, 146, 187, and 152 min, respectively, while the mean length of stay was 3.38 days. No statistically significant differences were perceived regarding the primary procedure. The overall complication rate was 18% (9 patients); 3 patients (6%) had 1 emergency department visit; readmissions accounted for 12% of cases (6 patients); the reoperation rate was 10% (5 patients); no fatal outcomes were recorded.

CONCLUSION

Duodenal switch conversions are an effective salvage procedure for insufficient weight loss and/or weight regain after adjustable gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; it is also safe, associated to low readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates.

Safety of Primary Versus Revisional Biliopancreatic Diversion with Duodenal Switch in Patients with Super Obesity Using the MBSAQIP database

INTRODUCTION

For patients with super obesity (BMI > 50 kg/m²), biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS) can be an effective bariatric operation. Technical challenges and patient safety concerns, however, have limited its use as a primary procedure. This study sought to assess the safety of primary versus revisional BPD/DS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The MBSAQIP database was queried for primary and revisional BPD/DS (2015-2018). Inclusion criteria were patients ≥ 18 years of age, BMI > 50 kg/m², and with no concurrent procedures. Preoperative variables were compared using a chi-square test or Wilcoxon two-sample tests. Multivariate logistic or robust linear regression models were used to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 3,378 primary BPD/DS and 487 revisional BPD/DS patients. Primary BPD/DS patients had higher BMI (56.5 [IQR4.4] versus 54.8 [IQR4] kg/m², p < 0.0001) and had more diabetes mellitus type II (29.1% versus 17.2%, p < 0.0001). Intraoperatively, revisional BPD/DS had longer operative time (165 [IQR47] min versus 139 [IQR100] min, p < 0.0001). After adjusting for preoperative characteristics, there was no difference in 30-day readmission or ED visits (primary 12.9% versus revisional 14.6%), reoperation or reintervention (primary 5.7% versus revisional 7.8%), or mortality (primary 0.4% versus revisional 0.6%). In contrast, the revisional BPD/DS patients had higher odds of major morbidity (primary 3.4% versus revisional 5.3%, OR 1.9, CI 1.1-3.2, p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional BPD/DS is associated with higher morbidity than primary BPD/DS in patients with super obesity. These patients should thus be counselled appropriately when choosing a primary or revisional bariatric procedure.

Revisional endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: an international, multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) facilitates significant and durable weight loss; however, weight recidivism and need for revisional surgery occur in a subset of patients. Reduction of a dilated LSG using the revisional endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (R-ESG) approach is an appealing and minimally invasive alternative to surgical revision that is congruent with obesity as a chronic relapsing disease model. In this study, we examine the safety and efficacy of the technique in a large multicenter international cohort.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 9 centers for 82 consecutive adults who underwent R-ESG for weight regain after LSG using the OverStitch device (Apollo Endosurgery, Austin, Tex, USA) from March 2014 to November 2019 were reviewed. Total body weight loss (TBWL) and adverse events were reported up to 12 months. Univariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of response at 12 months.

RESULTS

Eighty-two adults (92.7% female) experienced 27.9 ± 20.7 kg weight regain from post-LSG nadir weight, prompting R-ESG (mean age, 42.8 ± 10.4 years) at a mean weight of 128.2 ± 57.5 kg. Mean R-ESG procedure duration was 48.3 ± 20.5 minutes, and the median number of sutures used was 4 (interquartile range, 3-4). After R-ESG, TBWL (follow-up %) was 6.6% ± 3.2% at 1 month (81.7%), 10.6% ± 4.4% at 3 months (74.4%), 13.2% ± 10.1% at 6 months (63.4%), and 15.7% ± 7.6% at 12 months (51.2%). In a per-protocol analysis, ≥10% TBWL was achieved by 37 of 51 patients (72.5%) at 6 months and 34 of 42 patients (81.0%) at 12 months; ≥15% TBWL was achieved by 20 of 46 patients (43.5%) at 6 months and 22 of 42 patients (52.4%) at 12 months. Only 1 moderate adverse event occurred in the form of a narrowed gastroesophageal junction, which resolved after a single endoscopic dilation.

CONCLUSIONS

R-ESG is a safe and effective means of facilitating weight loss for weight recidivism after LSG, with sustained results at 1 year. R-ESG should be considered before pursuing more-invasive surgical revisional options.

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.

Conversion from Duodenal Switch to Single Anastomosis Duodenal Switch to Deal with Postoperative Malnutrition

BACKGROUND

Duodenal switch (DS) is considered one of the most effective bariatric techniques for long-term weight and comorbidity control. After these operations, some patients may get severe complications related to malnutrition and a few of them may need surgical revision. Lengthening the common channel (CC) is usually the solution: changing the Roux anastomosis or with a side-to-side anastomosis (kissing X). We propose that when simplified construction of the DS is used, conversion to single anastomosis DS (SADI-S/OADS) is an easy and safe choice.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of conversion from DS to SADI-S in cases of malnutrition.

METHODS

We report three patients with severe malnutrition after a DS at 9, 74, and 84 months. One of them had also liver failure related to alcohol abuse and malnutrition. Laparoscopic reoperations included a new ileo-ileal anastomosis and takedown of the Roux-en-Y anastomosis with the aim of lengthening the CC.

RESULTS

All three patients were successfully converted by laparoscopy. After a median follow-up of 54.6 months [32-76 months], all of them had moderate weight regain and returned to normal biochemical nutritional parameters. Two patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) before DS had complete remission before conversion; one of them had recurrence of T2DM after conversion. The patient with liver failure improved significantly after conversion.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion from DS to SADI-S/OADS is a simple operation with excellent results in resolving malnutrition in those patients. However, weight regain and recurrence of comorbidities may arise.

Bariatric revisional surgery: What are the challenges for the patient and the practitioner?

Bariatric revisional surgery represents an important new issue for obese patients because of the considerable rate of failure and complications following bariatric surgery. As the frequency of bariatric procedures increases, so too does the incidence of revisional surgery, which has become becoming increasingly important. The surgeon must know the indications and the results of the various revisional procedures in order to best guide the therapeutic decision. The current challenge is to correctly select the patients for revisional surgery and to choose the appropriate procedure in each case. Multidisciplinary management is essential to patient re-assessment and to prepare the patient for a re- intervention. The objective of this update, based on data from all the most recent studies concerning revisional surgery, is to guide the surgeon in the choice of the revisional procedure, depending on patient characteristics, co-morbidities, the previously performed procedure, the type of failure or complication observed, but also on the surgeon's own habits and the center's expertise. The collected results show that revisional surgery is difficult, with higher complication rates and weight-loss results that are often lower than those of first-intent surgery. For these reasons, patient selection must be rigorous and multidisciplinary and the management in expert centers of these difficult situations must be encouraged.

Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy in super-obese and super-super-obese patients: a national database analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence remains contradictory for perioperative outcomes of super-obese (SO) and super-super-obese (SSO) patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To identify national 30-day morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) in SO and SSO patients.

SETTING

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database.

METHODS

All LSG and LRYGB patients from 2015 through 2017 in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database were grouped based on body mass index (BMI) as follows: morbidly obese (MO; BMI 35.0-49.9 kg/m²), SO (BMI 50.0-59.9 kg/m²), and SSO (BMI ≥60.0 kg/m²). Complications and mortality within 30 days were compared between BMI groups using Pearson X² or Fischer's exact tests. Multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for demographic characteristics and co-morbidities, and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) was reported for each outcome.

RESULTS

Of 356,621 patients, 71.6% had LSG and 28.4% LRYGB. A total of 272,195 patients were in the MO group, 65,565 in the SO group, and 18,861 in the SSO group. Higher BMI was associated with increased overall morbidity and mortality. The overall complication rate was significantly higher for SO (AOR = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.28 for LSG; AOR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15 for LRYGB) and SSO (AOR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.31-1.58 for LSG; AOR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.19-1.45 for LRYGB) compared with the MO group. Mortality was also significantly higher for SO (AOR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.10-2.48 for LSG; AOR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.23-2.80 for LRYGB) and SSO (AOR = 3.30, 95% CI 1.98-5.48 for LSG; AOR = 3.32, 95% CI 1.93-5.73 for LRYGB) compared with the MO group.

CONCLUSIONS

SO and SSO patients are at increased risk of 30-day morbidity and mortality compared with MO patients. Despite this elevated perioperative risk, the overall risk of these procedures remains low and acceptable especially as bariatric surgery is the durable treatment option for obesity.

Conversion from laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) to one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB): preliminary data from a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most commonly performed bariatric procedure, while laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been for a decade one of the most popular interventions for weight loss. After LSG and LAGB, some patients may require a second surgery due to weight regain or late complications. One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a promising bariatric procedure, which provides effective long-term weight loss and has a favorable effect on type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively analyze data from 10 Italian centers on conversion from LAGB and LSG to OAGB.

SETTING

High-volume centers for bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 10 high-volume centers were retrospectively reviewed. Body mass index (BMI), percentage of excess BMI loss, reasons for redo, remission from co-morbidities (hypertension, diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux, and dyslipidemia), and major complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Three hundred patients were included in the study; 196 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to OAGB and 104 were converted from LSG. BMI was 45.1 ± 7 kg/m2 at the time of first intervention, 41.8 ± 6.3 kg/m2 at redo time, and 30.5 ± 5.5 kg/m2 at last follow-up appointment. Mean percentage of excess BMI loss was 13.2 ± 28.2 at conversion and 73.4 ± 27.5 after OAGB. Remission rates from hypertension, diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux, and dyslipidemia were 40%, 62.5%, 58.7% and 52%, respectively. Mean follow-up was 20.8 (range, 6-156) months and overall complications rate was 8.6%.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that OAGB is a safe and effective revisional procedure after failed restrictive bariatric surgery.

Duodenal switch in revisional bariatric surgery: conclusions from an expert consensus panel

BACKGROUND

Duodenal switch (BPD/DS) is gaining popularity as a secondary procedure for inadequate weight loss after an initial operation.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to generate expert consensus points on the appropriate use of BPD/DS in the revisional bariatric surgical setting.

SETTING

Data were gathered at an international conference with attendees from a variety of different institutions and settings.

METHODS

Sixteen lines of questioning regarding revisional BPD/DS were presented to an expert panel of 29 bariatric surgeons. Current available literature was reviewed extensively for each topic and proposed to the panel before polling. Responses were collected and topics defined as achieving consensus (≥70% agreement) or no consensus (<70% agreement).

RESULTS

Consensus was present in 10 of 16 lines of questioning, with several key points most prominent.

CONCLUSIONS

As a second-stage procedure, BPD/DS is most appropriate after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for the treatment of super morbid obesity (96.7% agree) or as a subsequent operation for a reliable patient with insufficient weight loss after SG (88.5%). In a patient with weight regain and reflux and/or enlarged fundus after SG, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is preferable and BPD/DS should be avoided (90%). BPD/DS should not be used prophylactically in patients with a history of jejunoileal bypass who are otherwise doing well (80.8%). Applicability of BPD/DS is limited by technical difficulty; 86.2% of experts would routinely recommend or consider the procedure if it were more technically feasible after failed bypass. No consensus was found on approaches to revision of BPD/DS for protein malnutrition.