Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, or one anastomosis gastric bypass as rescue therapy after failed adjustable gastric banding: a multicenter comparative study

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Failure: Could the Number of Previous Operations Influence the Outcome?

After a failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been proposed as revisional surgery. Those patients that receive a second restrictive procedure fall into a small subgroup of patients with more than one restrictive procedure (MRP). If also the second restrictive procedure fails, the correct surgical strategy is a challenge for the surgeon. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) may be an option but there is no evidence in the literature on whether the procedure is effective in treating failures after MRP. This study aims to evaluate the influence of the previous number of restrictive interventions (MRP vs single LSG) in the results of RYGB as revisional surgery. We have retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent conversion from laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), or from multiple restrictive procedures (MRP), to RYGB for weight regain (WR) or insufficient weight loss (IWL) between 2009 and 2019. The number of patients analyzed was 69 with conversion to RYGB after LSG and 44 after MRP. The reduction of excess weight (%TWL) at 3, 6, 12, 24 RYGB postoperative months was respectively of 11.03%, 16.39%, 21.43%, and 24.22% in the MRP group, and of 10.97%, 16.4%, 21.22%, and 22.71% in the LSG group. No significant difference was found in %TWL terms after RYGB for the MRP group and the LSG group with an overall %TWL, which was 11.00 ± 6.03, 16.40 ± 8.08, 21.30 ± 9.43, and 23.30 ± 9.91 respectively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The linear regression model highlighted a positive relationship between the %EWL post-bypass at 24 months and the time elapsed only between the LSG and RYGB in the MRP group patients (p < 0.001). RYGB has proved to be a reliable technique with good results in terms of weight loss after failed bariatric surgery both in patients who previously underwent MRP and in those who underwent exclusively LSG. RYGB showed better results in patients who experienced WR than in those who had IWL from previous techniques.

Financial toxicity risk among patients with gastric banding complications in the United States: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (AGB) was historically among the most performed bariatric procedures but has fallen out of favor in recent years due to poor long-term weight loss and high revisional surgery rates. Significant financial hardship of medical care, known as "financial toxicity," can occur from experiencing unexpected complications of AGB.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the risk of financial toxicity among patients being admitted for AGB complications.

SETTING

United States.

METHODS

All uninsured and privately-insured patients who were admitted for AGB complications were identified from the National Inpatient Sample 2015-2019. Publicly available government data (U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) were utilized to estimate patient income, food expenditures, and average maximum out-of-pocket expenditures. Financial toxicity was defined as total admission cost from AGB complications ≥40% of postsubsistence income.

RESULTS

Among 28,005 patients, 66% patients had private insurance and 44% patients were uninsured. Median total admission cost was $12,443 (interquartile range $7959-$19,859) and $15,182 for those who received revisional bariatric surgery. Approximately 55% of the uninsured patients and 1% of insured patients were at risk of financial toxicity after admission for banding-related complications. Patients who had an emergency admission, revisional surgery, or postoperative intensive care unit admission were more likely to experience financial catastrophe following admission (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

About 1 in 2 uninsured patients admitted for AGB-related complications were at risk of financial toxicity. In addition to surgical risks, providers should consider the potential financial consequences of AGB when counselling patients on their choice of surgery.

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.

Trends and safety of bariatric revisional surgery in Italy: multicenter, prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) represents a further solution for patients who experience inadequate weight loss (IWL) following primary bariatric surgery (BS) or significant weight regain (WR) following initial satisfactory response. RBS guidelines are lacking; however, an increased trend in further BS offerings has been reported recently.

OBJECTIVE

Analyze trend, mortality, complication, readmission, and reoperation rates for any reason at 30 days after RBS in Italy.

SETTING

Ten Italian high-volume BS centers (university hospitals and private centers).

METHODS

Prospective, observational, multicenter study enrolling patients undergoing RBS between October 1, 2021, and March 31, 2022, registering reasons for RBS, technique, mortality, intraoperative and perioperative complications, readmissions, and reinterventions for any reason. Patients undergoing RBS during the same calendar interval in 2016-2020 were considered control patients.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients were enrolled and compared with 560 control-group patients. Mortality was .45% versus .35% (n.s), with an overall mortality of .25%, while open surgery or conversion to open surgery was registered in 1%. No difference was found for mortality, morbidity, complications, readmission (1.3%), and reoperation rates (2.2%). IWL/WR was the most frequent cause, followed by gastroesophageal reflux disease; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was the most used revisional procedure (56%). Sleeve gastrectomy was the most revised procedure in the study group, while gastric banding was the most revised in the control group. RBS represents up to 9% of the total BS in the Italian participating centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy represents the standard approach for RBS, which appears safe. Current Italian trends show a shift toward sleeve gastrectomy being the most revised procedure and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass being the most frequent revisional procedure.

Management of leaks following one-anastomosis gastric bypass: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 44 318 patients

INTRODUCTION

One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) complication, such as leakage, can be dangerous and should be managed properly, yet little data exist in the literature regarding the management of leaks after OAGB, and there are no guidelines to date.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature and 46 studies, examining 44 318 patients were included.

RESULTS

There were 410 leaks reported in 44 318 patients of OAGB published in the literature, which represents a prevalence of 1% of leaks after OAGB. The surgical strategy was very variable among all the different studies; 62.1% of patients with leaks had to undergo another surgery due to the leak. The most commonly performed procedure was peritoneal washout and drainage (with or without T-tube placement) in 30.8% of patients, followed by conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in 9.6% of patients. Medical treatment with antibiotics, with or without total parenteral nutrition alone, was conducted in 13.6% of patients. Among the patients with the leak, the mortality rate related to the leak was 1.95%, and the mortality due to the leak in the population of OAGB was 0.02%.

CONCLUSION

The management of leaks following OAGB requires a multidisciplinary approach. OAGB is a safe operation with a low leak risk rate, and the leaks can be managed successfully if detected in a timely fashion.

Revisional bariatric surgery after adjustable gastric band: a multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS)

BACKGROUND

Adjustable gastric band (AGB) hadbeen the preferred treatment for morbid obesity because it is minimally invasive and reversible. But now it seems to be slowly becoming a historic procedure due to the disappointing effects. The aim of the study was to systematize and present the available data on revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) after AGB among Polish patients.

METHODS

It is a multicenter, retrospective analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic RBS after AGB in 12 Polish bariatric centers. The database included patient demographics, comorbidities and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The group consisted of 234 patients who underwent AGB, which accounted for 29% of revisional cases recorded in the Polish Revisional Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS). 195 were women (83%), and 39 were men (17%). One hundred seventy-five patients after AGB experienced a weight regain (74.5%), 36 patients a gastric band slippage (15.0%), 14 patients had gastric band intolerance (6.0%). Types of RBS included 116 sleeve gastrectomies (SG) (49.4%), 86 Roux-en Y gastric by-passes (RYGB) (36.6%), 20 one anastomosis gastric by-passes (OAGB) (8,5%). The highest weight loss expressed as %EBMIL was observed after OAGB (63.5 ± 32.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The main indication for RBS after AGB was weight regain. SG was the most frequently chosen type of RBS after AGB. RBS after AGB leads to weight loss and improvement in type 2 diabetes and hypertension with an acceptable low risk of complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05108532.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Sleeve Gastrectomy or One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Conversion Following Adjustable Gastric Banding

BACKGROUND

Given revision or conversion surgery is required in up to 60% of patients who had adjustable gastric band (LAGB), we compared safety and efficacy of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) as conversion surgical procedures in patients with suboptimal response or weight recurrence following LAGB.

METHODS

Conversion surgery was performed in 335 patients between 2016 and 2020. Weight loss, early and late-stage complications, and comorbidity outcomes were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-three patients underwent cSG (BMI: 38.3 ± 8.3 kg/m²), and 172 patients underwent cOAGB (BMI: 45.2 ± 9.3 kg/m²). Percent total body weight loss (%TWL) was 28.7 ± 9.9% at 12 months, 30.3 ± 12.8% at 2 years, 31.0 ± 14.5% at 3 years, and 31.1 ± 14.7% at 4 years following OAGB, which was significantly higher than SG; 18.4 ± 8.7%, 18.8 ± 9.8%, 19.3 ± 11.1%, and 16.9 ± 10.9%, respectively (p < 0.0001). Remission of comorbidities, regardless of conversion procedure type, was 20.8% for hypertension (HT), 52% for dyslipidemia (DLD), 60% for type 2 diabetes (DM), 64% for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and 76% for insulin resistance (IR).There were no leaks or deaths following SG or OAGB. A twofold greater frequency of complications was seen in the OAGB group vs SG group (15.1% and 6.7%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Significant weight loss, acceptable complication rates, and similar remission of comorbidities were seen regardless of the type of conversion procedure. Prospective randomized clinical trials are recommended for further elucidation of long-term outcomes.

Bariatric Surgery Conversions in MBSAQIP Centers: Current Indications and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The demand for revisional bariatric surgery has increased, and bariatric conversions (BC) to a different procedure represent most of the revisional cases. The 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditfnation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database was expanded to include additional variables on BC. This study aims to analyze the indications and outcomes of BC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the 2020 MBSAQIP database was performed. Patients who underwent BC were included in the analysis. Index procedures, rates, and indications for BC of the different bariatric operations were described. Outcomes of the most frequent BC were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 168,548 bariatric surgeries were done; 20,387 (12.1%) were revisional, and from those 15,031 (73.7%) were BC. The most converted index operations were sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (49.3%) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB) (45.9%). The most frequent conversions were SG to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (40.3%) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (54.2%) and weight loss failure (WLF) (35.8%), AGB to SG (27%) or RYGB (16.2%) for WLF (67% and 61.3%, respectively), and SG to biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (3.2%) or single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (2%) for WLF (91.2% and 92.4%, respectively). Postoperative overall morbidity, serious morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates ranged from 5.3 to 20.8%, 2.3 to 19.2%, 1.5 to 10%, and 0 to 0.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

BC represents the most frequent revisional bariatric procedure. GERD and WLF are the main causes for BC. Further research is needed to define the ideal BC according to the index procedure and indication.

Adjustable Gastric Banding Conversion to One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: Data Analysis of a Multicenter Database

INTRODUCTION

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has been proposed as a rescue technique for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) poor responders.

AIM

We sought to analyze, complications, mortality, and medium-term weight loss results after LAGB conversion to OAGB.

METHODS

Data analysis of an international multicenter database.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-nine LAGB-to-OAGB operations were retrospectively analyzed. Eighty-seven (46.0%) were converted in one stage. Patients operated on in two stages had a higher preoperative body mass index (BMI) (37.9 vs. 41.3 kg/m², p = 0.0007) and were more likely to have encountered technical complications, such as slippage or erosions (36% vs. 78%, p < 0.0001). Postoperative complications occurred in 4.8% of the patients (4.6% and 4.9% in the one-stage and the two-stage group, respectively). Leak rate, bleeding episodes, and mortality were 2.6%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively. The final BMI was 30.2 at a mean follow-up of 31.4 months. Follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years was 100%, 88%, and 70%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Conversion from LAGB to OAGB is safe and effective. The one-stage approach appears to be the preferred option in non-complicate cases, while the two-step approach is mostly done for more complicated cases.

Postoperative morbidity and weight loss after revisional bariatric surgery for primary failed restrictive procedure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

revisional bariatric surgery is gaining increasing interest as long term follow-up studies demonstrate an elevated failure rate of primary surgery due to insufficient weight loss, weight regain or complications. This particularly concerns restrictive bariatric surgery which has been widely adopted from the '80s till present through different procedures, notably vertical banded gastroplasty, laparoscopic adjusted gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy. The aim of this study is to define which revisional bariatric procedure performs the best after failure of primary restrictive surgery.

METHODS

a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 39 studies was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane protocol.

RESULTS

biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch guarantees the best results in terms of weight loss (1 and 3-years %TWL MD: 12.38 and 28.42) followed by single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass (9.24 and 19.13), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (7.16 and 13.1), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (4.68 and 7.3) compared to re-sleeve gastrectomy. Duodenal switch and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass are associated to an increased risk of late major morbidity (OR: 3.07 and 2.11 respectively) compared to re-sleeve gastrectomy while no significant difference was highlighted for the other procedures. Re-sleeve gastrectomy is the revisional intervention most frequently burdened by weight recidivism; compared to it, patients undergoing single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass have the lowest risk of weight regain (OR: 0.07).

CONCLUSION

considering the analyzed outcomes altogether, single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass and one-anastomosis gastric bypass are the most performing revisional procedures after failure of restrictive surgery due to satisfying short and mid-term weight loss and low early and late morbidity. Moreover, single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass has low risk of weight recidivism.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity in a Belgian-French prospective multicenter study: outcomes and predictors weight loss failure

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) became the most frequently performed bariatric procedure worldwide, gaining rapidly popularity thanks to its technical simplicity and the relatively good results. The aim of this Belgian-French study was to evaluate postoperative complications, weight loss, and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities after LSG, and identify predictive factors of weight loss failure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective multicenter study was conducted on all LSG performed during 2014 in 7 centers. Their demographic, preoperative, and postoperative data were prospectively collected and analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

Overall 529 patients underwent LSG, with a mean preoperative weight and body mass index (BMI) of 118.9 ± 19.9 kg and 42.9 ± 5.5 kg/m², respectively. Postoperative mortality was null and early postoperative morbidity was 6%, including 2.5% of gastric leakage. BMI significantly decreased to 31.1 kg/m² and 30.0 kg/m² at 1 and 3 years, respectively (p < .001). The mean %EWL was 77.2 and 74.6% at 1 and 3 years. A significant reduction in dyslipidemia (28.0-16.8%), obstructive sleep apnea (OSAS) (34.6-23.3%) and arterial hypertension (HTN) (30.4-20.2%) was observed after 3 years, but it does not concern diabetes and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). At multivariate analysis, age > 50 years old, BMI >50 kg/m² and previous laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) remained independent predictors of weight loss failure.

CONCLUSIONS

LSG for morbid obesity is safe and effective. Satisfactory outcome after 3 years can be achieved regarding %EWL and some comorbidities such as dyslipidemia, OSAS, and HTN, but not diabetes and GERD. Age > 50 years old, BMI > 50 kg/m² and previous LAGB were independent predictors of weight loss failure.

Revisional One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass with a 150-cm Biliopancreatic Limb After Failure of Adjustable Gastric Banding: Mid-Term Outcomes and Comparison Between One- and Two-Stage Approaches

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was a common procedure worldwide but associated with a high rate of long-term failure. This study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of conversion to one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) after failed LAGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We undertook a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database in a tertiary referral center for bariatric surgery. All cases of revisional OAGB with a biliopancreatic limb (BPL) of 150 cm after failed LAGB performed between 2010 and 2016 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 215 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to OAGB. Indication for surgery was primary weight loss (WL) failure in 30.7% of cases and long-term complications in the remaining patients, with or without associated weight regain. At the time of OAGB, the mean age was 43.2 ± 10.5 years and the mean BMI was 42 ± 6.9. Overall postoperative morbidity was 13.5%. The postoperative abscess ± leak rate was 5.9% in the overall population. Two years after OAGB, 9.7% of patients were lost to follow-up, % excess weight loss (EWL) was 88.2 ± 23.9, and % total weight loss (TWL) was 38.7 ± 9.3. At 5 years, 16.6% of patients were lost to follow-up, %EWL was 82.4 ± 25, and %TWL was 36.1 ± 10. There was no statistical difference in complication rates or WL results between the one-stage and two-stage approaches.

CONCLUSION

OAGB with a 150-cm BPL represents a safe and effective option after failed LAGB. Both synchronous OAGB and two-step revisional OAGB guarantee satisfying results in terms of postoperative morbidity and WL outcomes.

Which predictors could effect on remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus after the metabolic surgery: A general perspective of current studies?

BACKGROUND

The alarming rise in the worldwide prevalence of obesity is paralleled by an increasing burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Metabolic surgery is the most effective means of obtaining substantial and durable weight loss in individual obese patients with T2DM. There are randomized trials that justify the inclusion of metabolic surgery into the treatment algorithm for patients with T2DM, but remission rates of T2DM after metabolic surgery can display great variability.

AIM

To discuss the most commonly used surgical options including vertical sleeve gastrectomy, adjustable gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch.

METHODS

We also report from observational and randomized controlled studies on rate of remission of T2DM after the surgical procedures.

RESULTS

In light of the recent findings, metabolic surgery is a safe and effective treatment option for obese patient with T2DM, but further studies are needed to clarify better the rate of diabetes remission.

CONCLUSION

In light of the recent findings, metabolic surgery is a safe and effective treatment option for obese patients with T2DM, but further studies are needed to clarify better the rate of diabetes remission.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as a Revisional Procedure After Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding

BACKGROUND

Recent data demonstrates that laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is found to be associated with high rates of weight loss failure and long-term complications. Therefore, the search for the optimal revisional bariatric procedure is ongoing.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to assess the safety and efficacy of converting a failed LAGB to laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) as a revisional procedure.

SETTING

Large, metropolitan, tertiary, university hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients who underwent OAGB after LAGB.Demographics, comorbidities, BMI before and after the procedure, complications, and length of stay were documented.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients underwent OAGB after LAGB. For 41 patients, the band was removed, and an OAGB was performed in a single procedure (71.9%), and 96.5% of the cases were completed laparoscopically. Postoperative complications occurred in 9 patients (15.7%), including one mortality. Average BMI decreased from 42.8 ± 7.0 to 31.3 ± 5.2 kg/m² at least 1 year after surgery, representing a mean %EWL of 64.5%. There was no statistical difference in complication rates between the 1-stage and 2-stage approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of a failed LAGB to OAGB is effective but carries higher complication rates. Randomized controlled studies comparing different procedures are necessary to further clarify the optimal revisional bariatric operation.

Five-year Outcomes of Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Prospective Multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most frequently performed bariatric procedure in the world. Our purpose was to evaluate the percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), resolution of obesity-related comorbidities after SG, and identify predictive factors of weight loss failure.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study of adults who underwent SG during 2014 in 7 Belgian-French centers. Their demographic, preoperative, and postoperative data were prospectively collected and analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

Overall, 529 patients underwent SG, with a mean preoperative weight and body mass index (BMI) of 118.9 ± 19.9 kg and 42.9 ± 5.5 kg/m², respectively. Body mass index significantly decreased to 32.2 kg/m² at 5 years (P < .001). The mean %EWL was 63.6% at 5 years. A significant reduction in dyslipidemia (28.0%-18.2%), obstructive sleep apnea (OSAS) (34.6%-25.1%), and arterial hypertension (HTN) (30.4%-21.5%) was observed after 5 years, but not for diabetes and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). At multivariate analysis, age >50 years old, BMI >50 kg/m², and previous laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) remained independent predictors of weight loss failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Five years after SG, weight loss was satisfactory; the reduction of comorbidities was significant for dyslipidemia, OSAS, and HTN, but not diabetes and GERD. Age >50 years old, BMI >50 kg/m², and previous LAGB were independent predictors of weight loss failure.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus one anastomosis-mini gastric bypass as a rescue procedure following failed restrictive bariatric surgery. A systematic review of literature with metanalysis

BACKGROUND

Although different procedures have been proposed as revisional surgery for patients who had previously undergone a failed primary restrictive procedure, the ideal revisional procedure is still a matter of debate.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in all electronic databases to find studies comparing one anastomosis-mini gastric bypass (OAGB-MGB) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as revisional bariatric surgery for weight regain or intolerance/complications of a primary restrictive procedure. The data regarding sample size, patients' gender, age, primary surgery type, number of perioperative complications, operative time, pre- and post-revisional body mass index (BMI), and excess weight loss % (EWL%) at 1-year follow-up were extracted. Five studies were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The primary bariatric procedures were represented by vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). About perioperative complications, both RYGB and OAGB-MGB showed a similar rate of leaks but OAGB-MGB had a lower rate of bleedings; considering the progression from pre- to post-revisional BMI, OAGB-MGB reveals a better outcome as well as a shorter operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis has shown OAGB-MGB, used as revisional intervention after failed restrictive surgery, achieves outcomes comparable to RYGB in terms of perioperative complications providing a simpler and more effective technique.

Revisional One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass After Restrictive Index Surgery-a Metaanalysis and Comparison with Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

BACKGROUND

One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) was established as a recognized bariatric procedure in the 2018 International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) position statement. This study evaluates the outcomes of revisional OAGB (rOAGB) after a restrictive index procedure, and to compare it to revisional RYGB (rRYGB).

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines on papers published from inception till February 2020. Original studies involving patients who underwent rOAGB after a primary failed restrictive procedure were included. The primary outcome measured was postrOAGB weight loss. Secondary outcome measures include comorbidity resolution, operative duration, length of stay, morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies with 1377 patients were included. Five studies compared rOAGB versus rRYGB. Majority of the patients (76%) were female, with mean age of 43.5 years old. Mean body mass index (BMI) before revisional surgery was 41.6 kg/m². The most common biliopancreatic limb length was 200 cm. Percentage of excess weight loss after rOAGB increases to a maximum of 76.0% at 48 months postsurgery. rOAGB resulted in a pooled prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obstructive sleep apnea resolution of 74.9%, 48.4%, 63.2%, and 75.7% respectively. When compared to rRYGB, rOAGB demonstrated greater weight loss, comparable metabolic syndrome resolution, but with a shorter operating time. Morbidity and mortality rates were low across all studies.

CONCLUSIONS

rOAGB has potential as an alternative revisional surgery, with weight loss profiles and rates of metabolic syndrome resolution that are comparable to rRYGB.

One Anastomosis/Mini-Gastric Bypass (OAGB/MGB) as Revisional Surgery Following Primary Restrictive Bariatric Procedures: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB) has gained popularity in the past decade. International databases were searched for articles published by September 10, 2020, on OAGB/MGB as a revisional procedure after restrictive procedures. Twenty-six studies examining a total of 1771 patients were included. The mean initial BMI was 45.70 kg/m², which decreased to 31.52, 31.40, and 30.54 kg/m² at 1, 3, and 5-year follow-ups, respectively. Remission of type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) following OAGB/MGB at 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up was 65.16 ± 24.43, 65.37 ± 36.07, and 78.10 ± 14.19%, respectively. Remission/improvement rate from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Also, 7.4% of the patients developed de novo GERD following OAGB/MGB. Leakage was the most common major complication. OAGB/MGB appears to be feasible and effective as a revisional procedure after failed restrictive bariatric procedures.

Weight Loss as the First-Line Therapy in Patients with Severe Obesity and Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome: the Role of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

PURPOSE

The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) on the polysomnographic parameters related to OSAS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted this 3-year prospective cohort study in a tertiary care center between December 2016 and December 2019. In total, we enrolled 31 patients with severe obesity who underwent full-night polysomnography (PSG) before LSG. Later, the patients were re-evaluated by full-night PSG 12 months after the surgery.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 44.1 ± 9.6 years. The mean body mass index (BMI) decreased significantly from a mean value of 49.8 ± 8.5 kg/m² at baseline to 33.2 ± 8.2 kg/m² and a percent BMI (%BMI) reduction of 33.8 ± 10.4% and a percent total weight loss (%TWL) of 35.4 ± 10.8% was achieved on the same day of the postsurgical PSG (p < 0.001). There was a remarkable improvement in the AHI (baseline: 36.1 ± 27.1, 12 months after the surgery: 10.3 ± 11.8; difference: 25.8 ± 22.8 events per hour) (p < 0.001). Importantly, there was a decrease in the percentage of non-rapid eye movement (NREM) 2 (p < 0.001), whereas NREM 3 and REM stages witnessed a significant increase (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively) after the surgery.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that weight loss after LSG yields improvement not only in AHI but also in many polysomnographic parameters such as sleep quality and desaturation indices.

Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients

BACKGROUND

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is often the preferred conversion procedure for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) poor responders. However, there is controversy whether it is better to convert in one or two stages. This study aims to compare the outcomes of one and two-stage conversions of LAGB to RYGB.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a multicenter prospectively collected database. Data on conversion in one and two stages was compared.

RESULTS

Eight hundred thirty-two patients underwent LAGB conversion to RYGB in seven specialized bariatric centers. Six hundred seventy-three (81%) were converted in one-stage. Patients in the two-stage group were more likely to have experienced technical complications, such as slippage or erosions (86% vs. 37%, p = 0.0001) and to have had a higher body mass index (BMI) (41.6 vs. 39.9 Kg/m², p = 0.005). There were no differences in postoperative complications and mortality rates between the one-stage and two-stage groups (13.5% vs. 10.8%, and 0.7% vs. 0.0% respectively, p = ns). Mean final BMI and %total weight loss (%TWL) for the one-stage and the two-stage groups were 31.6 vs. 32.4 Kg/m² (p = ns) and 30.4 vs. 26.8 (p = 0.017) after a mean follow-up of 33 months. Follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years was 98%, 75%, and 54%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage conversion of LAGB to RYGB is safe and effective. Two-stage conversion carries low morbidity and mortality in the case of band slippage, erosion, or higher BMI patients. These findings suggest the importance of patient selection when choosing the appropriate conversion approach.

Clinical Outcomes of Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding

BACKGROUND

Over recent decades, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been among the most common bariatric surgeries. Nowadays, many patients require revision surgery due to insufficient weight loss and band-related complications. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are the two most common revision surgeries for failed LAGB, but the conclusions about their efficacy and safety have been inconsistent. This meta-analysis aimed to review the clinical outcomes of SG and RYGB after failed LAGB.

METHODS

In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were systematically searched for articles that had studied the efficacy and safety of SG and RYGB. The most appropriate effects model was chosen based on the heterogeneity of the articles included in this meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata 14.0.

RESULTS

Of 586 articles that were retrieved, 16 articles which examined 2141 SG and 2990 RYGB patients met the inclusion criteria. The patients in RYGB groups showed increased percent excess weight loss (%EWL) at 12 and 24 months after revision surgery but no statistically significant change was found about %EWL after 3, 6, or 36 months. In addition, RYGB was associated with a higher rate of complications, interventions, and readmission in addition to being of more operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggested that RYGB was more effective at demonstrating weight loss after 12 and 24 months, but comparisons of the long-term efficacy of RYGB with that of SG remain inconclusive. In addition, RYGB was accompanied by a greater number of post-operative complications, interventions, and readmissions. Thus, surgeons should consider the overall status of the patients and their comorbidities as crucial factors when selecting a form of revision surgery. Additional high-quality randomized controlled studies are required to further compare the efficacy and safety of these treatments with longer follow-up times.

Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Safe Surgical Opportunity? Results of a Case-Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after adjustable gastric banding (AGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) compared with primary RYGB, in regard to early and late morbidity, weight, and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities.

METHODS

The group of patients undergoing revisional RYGB was matched in a 1:1 ratio with control patient who underwent a primary RYGB, based on age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, preoperative body mass index (BMI), and diabetes mellitus. Demographics, anthropometrics, preoperative work-up, and perioperative data were retrieved.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients (16 males and 99 females) with a mean age of 45.5 ± 1.5 years underwent revisional RYGB following either LAGB in 82 patients (71.3%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in 33 patients (28.7%). There was no conversion and no mortality in either group. Revisional RYGB was associated with similar early (16.5 vs 15.6%, ns) and late (42.6% vs 32.2%, ns) morbidity rates with a mean follow-up of 25.3 ± 16.6 months compared to primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The revisional RYGB group had significantly less weight loss (mean %EWL 67.4 ± 20.7 vs 72.7 ± 22.9, p = 0.023 and mean %EBMI 68.1 ± 22 vs 78.3 ± 25.7, p = 0.01) at the time of 1 year. Improvement of comorbidities including hypertension (62.5 vs 70.5%; p > 0.05), diabetes (73.7 vs 79%; p > 0.05), and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (100 vs 97%; p > 0.05) was similar.

CONCLUSION

This large case-matched study suggests that conversion of SG or AGB to RYGB is feasible with early and late comparable morbidity in an accredited center; even weight results might be inferior.

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.