Revisional bariatric 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.

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.

Single-Anastomosis Sleeve Jejunal (SAS-J) Bypass as Revisional Surgery After Primary Restrictive Bariatric Procedures

Purpose

Single-anastomosis sleeve jejunal (SAS-J) bypass is the modification of a single-anastomosis sleeve ileal (SASI) bypass with a short biliary limb. SAS-J bypass is reported to be a good primary bariatric procedure. This study aimed to evaluate the results of SAS-J bypass as a revisional surgery after failed primary restrictive bariatric procedures.

Material and Methods

This was a prospective cohort study including 43 patients who underwent SAS-J bypass as a revisional surgery for weight regain after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), or laparoscopic gastric plication.

Results

Of the total patients, 35 (81.4%) were female, and 8 (18.6%) were male. The mean BMI was 46.3 kg/m². The mean age was 41 years. Thirty-two patients (74.4%) had a failed sleeve, 9 (20.9%) had a failed LAGB, and 2 (4.7%) had a failed gastric plication. The mean operative time was 104 min. Intra-abdominal bleeding occurred in 1 case (2.3%), and intraluminal bleeding occurred in 3 cases (7%). No case (0%) developed a leak. The percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) reached 76.5% after 1 year. Type 2 diabetes mellitus remission occurred in all diabetic patients, hypertension remitted in 80%, hyperlipidemia remitted in 83.3%, and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome improved in all cases. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms were improved in 86.7% of patients. Significant biliary gastritis occurred in 4 patients (9.3%). Dumping syndrome was reported in 4 patients (9.3%).

Conclusions

SAS-J bypass was effective as a salvage surgery after failed restrictive bariatric procedures, but long-term follow-up is needed.

Graphical abstract

Magnet and wire remodeling for the treatment of candy cane syndrome: first case series of a new approach (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Candy cane syndrome (CCS) is an adverse event (AE) from gastrectomy or gastric bypass and end-to-side anastomosis to a jejunal loop. Preferential passage of food to the blind loop induces early satiety, pain, and regurgitation. An endoscopic device that combines 2 magnets and a self-retractable wire was designed to perform progressive septotomy with marsupialization. We evaluated the clinical safety and efficacy of this treatment in CCS.

METHODS

Consecutive patients presenting with symptoms associated with CCS after gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were treated with the MAGUS (Magnetic Gastrointestinal Universal Septotome) system. Weight, dysphagia, pain scores, 12-item Short Form Survey quality of life physical and mental scores, GERD Health-Related Quality of Life, and Eckardt score were measured at baseline and 1 and 3 months postprocedure. Satisfaction with therapy and AEs were monitored during follow-up.

RESULTS

Fourteen consecutive patients with CCS were enrolled in the study. Thirteen MAGUS systems migrated within 28 days after achieving uneventful complete septotomy. In 1 patient the magnet had to be collected from the right-sided colon after 1 month. Treatment was completed in a single endoscopy session. Dysphagia score (2 [1-3] vs 1 [1-1], P = .02), pain score (7 [6-8] vs 1 [0-1], P = .002), Eckardt score (5 [3-8] vs 1 [0-2], P = .002), GERD Health-Related Quality of Life score (37 [29-45] vs 8 [6-23], P = .002), and quality of life physical and mental scores were all significantly improved at 3 months. No device or procedure-related serious AEs were observed. One patient died during follow-up from evolution of oncologic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoluminal septotomy using a retractable wire and magnet system in CCS is feasible and safe, with rapid improvement of symptoms. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04480216.).

Minimally Invasive Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a MBSAQIP Accredited High-Volume Center

Background

With the rising number of bariatric surgeries performed annually, there has also been an increase in revisional bariatric surgeries (RBS). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and postoperative outcomes of RBS performed with a minimally invasive approach.

Methods

Retrospective analysis on a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent minimally invasive RBS between 2012 and 2019. Primary endpoints were conversion rate, major morbidity, mortality, and 30-day reoperation rate. Comparative analysis of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) vs. conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) was performed.

Results

A total of 221 patients underwent minimally invasive RBS, 137 (62%) laparoscopically and 84 (38%) robotically. The most common RBS were LAGB to SG (59.3%) and LAGB to RYGB conversions (16.7%). The main indication was weight loss failure (88.7%). Conversion rate, major morbidity, and mortality were 0.9, 3.2, and 0.4%, respectively. Urgent reoperation was required in 3.2% of cases. Total weight loss at 1 and 2-years follow- were 14.3 and 17.3%, respectively. Comparative analysis of LAGB conversion to SG vs. RYGB showed similar major morbidity (SG: 2.3% vs. RYGB 0%, p = 1). Greater total weight loss was achieved in LAGB to RYGB conversions at 1-year (SG: 14.8% vs. RYGB 25.3%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive RBS can be performed safely in a broad patient population with low conversion and complication rates, and improved weight loss outcomes. LAGB to RYGB conversions are associated with greater weight loss. Further randomized trials are needed to draw more conclusive recommendations.

Current Status of Robot-Assisted Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Bariatric surgery has been demonstrated to be effective in achieving significant weight loss and remission of obesity-related comorbidities. However, a percentage of patients fail to lose enough weight, regain weight, or experience postoperative complications, requiring additional interventions. Revisional bariatric surgeries (RBS) involve the wide spectrum of procedures that aim to treat complications of the index operation or achieve further weight loss. These are technically challenging procedures due to adhesions of the internal organs, reduced working space, and a distorted anatomy. Indications, timing, and type of operation for RBS are not standardized, and there is no consensus on the best surgical approach. Some authors claim a robotic platform could be advantageous in these types of procedures that are performed in reduced, deep operating fields, or those requiring precision and accuracy. This review examines the most current and representative literature on the outcomes of robot-assisted RBS. Included studies demonstrate the safety and feasibility of the robotic approach for RBS. However, long operative times and high costs remain major drawbacks of the device. Finally, if we consider that many centers have not yet completed the learning curve for robot-assisted RBS, the potential for improved outcomes seems promising.

One anastomosis gastric bypass vs. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, remedy for insufficient weight loss and weight regain after failed restrictive bariatric surgery

Background

Failure occurs in up to 60% of the patients that were treated with primary restrictive bariatric operations such as Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding (LAGB), or restrictive/metabolic operations like Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG). Insufficient weight loss and weight regain are the most commonly reported reasons of failure. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to compare One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) as a revisional procedure in terms of weight loss, procedure time, complication rate and morbidity.

Methods

491 patients operated on between 2012 and 2017 for failed restrictive surgery were included in this study (OAGB (n=185) or RYGB (n=306)). Failure was defined as total weight loss (TWL) less than 25%, excess weight loss (EWL) less than 50% and/or a remaining body mass index (BMI) larger than 40 kg/m2 at two years of follow up. Primary outcome measures were %TWL and % excess BMI loss (EBMIL) at 12, 24 and 36 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were procedure time, reduction of comorbidity, early and late complication rate, and mortality.

Results

%TWL was significantly larger in the OAGB group at 12 months (mean 24.1±9.8 vs. 21.9±9.7, p = 0.023) and 24 months (mean 23.9±11.7 vs. 20.5±11.2, p = 0.023) of follow-up. %EBMIL was significantly larger in the OAGB group at 12 months (mean 69.0±44.6 vs. 60.0±30.1, p = 0.014) and 24 months (mean 68.6±51.6 vs. 56.4±35.4, p = 0.025) of follow-up. Intra-abdominal complications (leakage, bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess and perforation) occurred less frequently after revisional OAGB (1.1% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.025). Surgical intervention for biliary reflux (5.4% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001) was more prevalent in the OAGB group. Surgical intervention for internal herniation (0.0% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.002) was more prevalent in the RYGB group.

Conclusions

This study suggests that OAGB is superior to RYGB as a remedy for insufficient weight loss and weight regain after failed restrictive surgery with more weight loss and a lower early complication rate. To substantiate these findings, further research from prospective randomized controlled trials is needed.

Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a High-Volume Center Experience

PURPOSE

The number of bariatric revisional procedures is growing. Scarce evidence is available regarding the role and postoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and postoperative outcomes of RRBS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent RRBS between 2012 and 2019 was performed. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day major morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), urgent reoperation rates, and percentage of total weight loss (%TWL).

RESULTS

RRBS was performed in 76 patients; among these 60 (78.9%) underwent conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (C-RYGB). Failed weight loss (76%) and gastroesophageal reflux (9.2%) were the main indications for revision. Primary bariatric procedures included gastric band (LAGB) (50%), sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (40.8%), and RYGB (6.6%). Major morbidity and mortality rates were 3.9% and 1.3%, respectively. Mean LOS was 2.1 days, and 3 patients (3.9%) required urgent reoperation. The %TWL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months was 10.2%, 16.6%, 18.3%, and 22.4% respectively. Comparative analysis of C-RYGB after failed LAGB and SG showed similar morbidity. Higher readmission rates (SG: 22.2% vs. LAGB: 0%, p = 0.007) and lower %EWL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were found in C-RYGB after SG.

CONCLUSION

This is one of the largest single-center series of RRBS published in the literature; the data indicate that robotic approach for revisional bariatric surgery is safe and helps achieving further weight loss. RRBS outcomes might be influenced by the primary procedure.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery Results in a Shorter Hospital Stay Following Revisional Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery is rapidly growing within the field of bariatric surgery. The use of robotic assisted surgery, considered controversial by many, may offer advantages in revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). There are few studies comparing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted RBS. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and outcome of laparoscopic and robotic RBS in a single accredited center.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively on patients undergoing either laparoscopic (L-RBS) or robotic (R-RBS) RBS between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019 was performed. The primary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), 30-day major and minor complication rates, readmission rates, and mortality rates.

RESULTS

A total of 167 patients were included in our analysis. Fifty-two patients underwent R-RBS (31%), and 115 underwent L-RBS (69%). Thirty-day major and minor complication rates for R-RBS and L-RBS were 1.9% and 5.8% vs 5.2% and 5.2%, respectively (p > .05). There was no difference in readmission rates (3.8% vs 8.7%, p > 0.05) or intraoperative blood loss (35.5 mL vs 37.4 mL, p > .05) between R-RBS and L-RBS. R-RBS resulted in a shorter length of stay when compared with L-RBS (40.2 h vs 62.6 h, p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

R-RBS has a decreased, albeit non-significant, rate of 30-day major complications with no difference in minor complications, readmission rates, or intraoperative blood loss when compared with L-RBS. R-RBS resulted in a decreased length of stay when compared with L-RBS. Randomized clinical trials are needed to better elucidate our findings.

Midterm results of revisional bariatric surgery postsleeve gastrectomy: resleeve versus bypass

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery has been shown to produce the most predictable weight loss results, with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) being the most performed procedure as of 2014. However, inadequate weight loss may present the need for a revisional procedure.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic resleeve gastrectomy (LRSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in attaining successful weight loss.

SETTING

Public hospital following SG.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who underwent SG from 2008-2019. A list was obtained of those who underwent revisional bariatric surgery after initial SG, and their demographic characteristics were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 2858 patients underwent SG, of whom 84 patients (3%) underwent either a revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rLRYGB) or LRSG. A total of 82% of the patients were female. The mean weight and body mass index (BMI) before SG for the LRSG and rLRYGB patients were 136.7 kg and 49.9 kg/m² and 133.9 kg and 50.5 kg/m², respectively. The mean BMI showed a drop from 42.0 to 31.7 (P < .001) 1 year post revisional surgery for the LRSG group and 42.7 to 34.5 (P < .001) for the rLRYGB group, correlating to an excess weight loss (EWL) of 61.7% and 48.1%, respectively. At 5 years post revisional surgery, LRSG patients showed an increase in BMI to 33.8 (EWL = 45.3%), while those who underwent rLRYGB showed a decrease to 34.3 (EWL = 49.2%). Completeness of follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years for rLRYGB and LRSG were 67%, 35%, and 24% and 45%, 21%, and 18%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional bariatric surgery is a safe and effective method for the management of failed primary SG. LRSG patients tended to do better earlier on; however, it leveled off with those who underwent rLRYGB by 5 years.

Technical Feasibility of a Murine Model of Sleeve Gastrectomy with Ileal Transposition

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition has been shown to be superior to sleeve gastrectomy alone for promoting weight loss in rat and porcine models. The absence of a mouse model for this procedure has impeded efforts to understand the molecular physiology underlying its efficacy. This study demonstrates the long-term survivability of sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition in mice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study of technical feasibility, a sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition (SGIT), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), or sham surgery (SH) was performed on 7- to 8-week-old C57Bl/6J mice (n = 8 for each). To evaluate long-term survivability, mice were placed on an obesogenic diet and weighed weekly for 10 weeks. The intestinal identity of the transposed segment was assessed with gene expression analysis of duodenal-, jejunal-, and ileal-specific hormones using quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

Overall, SGIT better prevented weight gain than the SG or sham procedures (10-week post-operative weight: SH 45.3 ± 1.0 g, SG 41.25 ± 1.6 g, SGIT 35.4 ± 0.8 g). Gene expression pattern analysis of three markers of intestinal identity (gastrin, cholecystokinin, and peptide YY) suggests that the ileal identity of the transposed segment is maintained 10 weeks after transposition.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate for the first time a reproducible mouse model of sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition. Future studies utilizing this model will expand our understanding of the molecular pathways through which the hindgut regulates satiety.

A Case series of candy cane limb syndrome after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Candy cane syndrome is a rare complication reported in bariatric patients following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. It occurs when there is an excessive length of roux limb proximal to gastrojejunostomy, creating the possibility for food particles to lodge and remain in the blind redundant limb. Patients present with non-specific symptoms such as abdominal pain associated with nausea and vomiting. Most remain undiagnosed as the disease process is poorly described. We report three cases of candy cane syndrome treated successfully at our institution.

Psychological and Behavioral Aspects of Primary and Reoperative Surgery: a 6-Month Longitudinal Study

BACKGROUND

Problematic eating behaviors and general psychopathology have been associated with poor weight loss after bariatric surgery. However, little is known about how these aspects impact weight loss outcomes for the increasing number of patients undergoing reoperative surgeries. This study compares disordered eating and weight-related outcomes before and 6 months after surgery in patients undergoing primary (P-Group) and reoperative bariatric surgery (R-Group).

METHODS

This longitudinal study assessed 122 P-Group and 116 R-Group patients before and 6 months after surgery. The assessment included the eating disorder examination diagnostic items, and a set of self-report measures assessing eating disorder symptomatology, grazing, depression, anxiety, and negative urgency.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, no differences were found between the R- and P-Groups in terms of disordered eating-related variables (except for shape concern, which was higher for the R-Group). At 6 months after surgery, the R-Group revealed significantly higher values for restraint (F(1,219) = 5.84, p = 0.016), shape (F(1,219) = 5.59, p = 0.019), weight concerns (F(1,219) = 13.36, p = 0.000), depression (F(1,219) = 7.17, p = 0.008), anxiety (F(1,219) = 6.94, p = - 0.009), and compulsive grazing (F(1,219) = 6.13, p = 0.014). No significant pre- or post-surgery predictors of weight loss were found for the P-Group (χ2 = 0.70, p = 0.872). In the R-Group, post-surgery anxiety (Waldχ²(1) = 6.19, p = 0.01) and the post-surgery number of days with grazing in the previous month (Waldχ²(1) = 3.90, p = 0.04) were significant predictors of weight loss.

CONCLUSION

At 6 months after surgery, the R-Group presented more problematic eating and general psychological distress, which may put these patients at greater risk of poorer long-term weight outcomes.

Feeding the gut after revisional bariatric surgery: The fate of 126 enteral access tubes

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is associated with higher complication rates compared with primary bariatric surgery. Feeding tubes (FTs), including gastrostomy and jejunostomy tubes placed during RBS, may serve as a safety net to provide nutrition when oral intake is contraindicated or limited; however, FTs in this setting have not been well investigated.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to determine complications, use, and duration of FTs placed during RBS.

SETTING

A high-volume academic medical center in the United States.

METHODS

Included patients underwent RBS between January 2008 and December 2016 with FTs placed at the time of RBS.

RESULTS

There were 126 patients identified (84.9% female, 76.2% Caucasian, mean age 53.4-±10.9 yr). Patients had previously undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (34.1%), vertical banded gastroplasty (27.8%), and adjustable gastric band (14.3%). Indications for RBS included correction of complication of prior bariatric surgeries (50%), weight regain/failure to lose weight (32.3%), or both (17.3%). Most FTs were placed in the excluded stomach (89.7%), and median tube size was 18 F. FTs were used for feeding in 68.2% of patients, with feeding initiated in a median of 2 days. Leakage around the tube (32.5%) and pain (26.8%) were common complaints. Significant tube-related complications included infection (9.1%), dislodgement (5.9%), reintervention (5.8%), and reoperation (2.8%); 16.7% experienced at least 1 significant complication. FTs were removed at a median of 36 days.

CONCLUSION

FTs may aid in prevention of perioperative dehydration and malnutrition after RBS, but should not be considered a benign intervention. FT use should be balanced against institutional outcomes and care goals.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: Outcomes of a case-matched comparison of primary versus revisional surgery

Introduction:

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy are popular bariatric procedures. Certain complications may necessitate revision. Adverse outcomes are reported after revisional bariatric surgery. We compared patients undergoing revisional versus primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB).

Materials and Methods

This was retrospective comparative 1:1 case-matched analysis of revisional LRYGB Group A versus primary LRYGB (pLRYGB/Group B). Matching was based on body mass index (BMI) and comorbidities. BMI decrease at 6 and 12 months post-surgery, comorbidity resolution, operative time, morbidity and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared. Total decrease in BMI, i.e., change from before initial bariatric procedure to 12 months after revision for Group A was also compared.

Results:

Median BMI (inter-quartile range) for Group A decreased to 44.74 (7.09) and 41.49 (6.26) at 6 and 12 months, respectively, for Group B corresponding figures were 38.74 (6.9) and 33.79 (6.64) (P = 0.001 and P = 0.0001, respectively). Total decrease in BMI (Group A) was 9.8, whereas BMI decrease at 12 months for Group B was 15.2 (P = 0.23). Hypertension resolved in 63% (Group A), 70% (Group B) (P = 0.6). Diabetes resolution was 80% (Group A), 63% (Group B) (P = 0.8). Operative time for Groups A, B was 151 ± 17, 137 ± 11 min, respectively (P = 0.004). There was no difference in morbidity and LOS.

Conclusion:

Comorbidity resolution after revisional and pLRYGB are similar. Less weight loss is achieved after revision than after pLRYGB, but total weight loss is comparable. Revisional surgery is safe when performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume centres.

Single Anastomosis Gastric Bypass-Comparative Short-Term Outcome Study of Conversional and Primary Procedures

BACKGROUND

Single anastomosis gastric bypass (SAGB) has been established as a safe and effective bariatric procedure. SAGB has also been suggested as a conversion option from other procedures, but so far not extensively explored in that direction.

METHODS

The study retrospectively reviewed and analyzed 154 consecutive SAGB procedures, including 48 conversional SAGB (cSAGB) and 106 primary SAGB (pSAGB). Preoperative physical dimensions and perioperative complications were obtained. Patients were followed 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively, with weight measurements compared between groups.

RESULTS

Operative times were longer in the cSAGB group but length of hospital stay was the same for both groups. Sixty-five percent of the cSAGB group had adjustable banding as a primary operation, and 94 % opted for conversion due to insufficient weight loss or regain thereof. Follow-up data availability was 98, 82, and 79 % for the three checkpoints. Three and 6 months postoperatively, cSAGB had inferior mean excess weight loss (EWL) compared to pSAGB, though both groups were successful after 6 months (mean EWL >50 %). Body mass index loss was significantly higher for pSAGB for the first postoperative 3 months. Low complication rates in both groups precluded statistical comparison in that respect.

DISCUSSION

Initial weight loss after conversional SAGB is inferior to primary SAGB after 6 months. The observed safety of cSAGB is comparable to previous evidence for this procedure in the conversional settings.

CONCLUSION

SAGB may be considered as a safe and effective conversional procedure, but not as effective as pSAGB for initial weight loss.

Management of Complications and Outcomes After Revisional Bariatric Surgery: 3-Year Experience at a Bariatric Center of Excellence

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is increasingly common. A tailored decision-making process is advocated. In this retrospective study, we reviewed the RBS experience of a single center, analyzing perioperative complications to provide insight into management options and midterm outcomes.

METHODS

Records from November 2011 to March 2015 were reviewed from prospectively maintained database. Six hundred eighteen patients underwent laparoscopic bariatric procedures; of these, 81 (13.1 %) underwent RBS. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months (n = 77) were evaluated. Fifty-nine underwent revised laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and 18 underwent revised Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Indications for RBS were inadequate weight loss or weight regain in 42 cases (54.5 %) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), procedure-related complications, or technical failure in 35 cases (45.5 %).

RESULTS

There were no deaths or conversions to open surgery. After a mean follow-up of 22 months, body mass index (BMI) decreased from 40.9 ± 6.7 to 31.9 ± 4.8 kg/m(2), mean % excess weight loss (%EWL) was 58 ± 24.3 %, and 55.3 % of patients had resolution of comorbidities. Eight major complications (10.4 %) occurred: five leaks and three intra-abdominal hematomas. Non-surgical management succeeded in 50 % of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that RBS is challenging; a complication rate of 10 % is expected. Major surgery can be avoided when devoted endoscopists and radiologists are available. Intensive follow-up after complications allows early diagnosis and treatment of unfavorable sequelae. RBS induced a mean %EWL of 58 % at 2 years and resolution of comorbidities in 50 % of cases. However, the durability of these effects remains questionable.

Re-operations after Secondary Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review

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

Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Focus on Quality of Life

Bariatric surgery is considered to be the most effective treatment for morbid obesity. At present, revisional surgery is considered in patients who experience complications, or in whom the intended weight loss is not achieved. However, as there is no consensus on what constitutes failure of primary surgery, there are no guidelines on who should receive revisional surgery. Physical parameters alone may be insufficient and quality of life has emerged as an alternative to provide a holistic appraisal of the outcome of primary surgery and the need for further revisional surgery in bariatric patients. Quality of life surveys such as short form health survey (SF-36) or Moorehead-Ardelt II (MA-II) assess the patients’ perception of their weight and can also be used to assess the impact of post-operative complications such as gastro-esophageal reflux disease or dysphagia. However, unrealistic expectations of weight loss have been shown to be prevalent in bariatric patients and patients who seek revisional surgery on the basis of disappointment with the primary outcome are unlikely to be satisfied with the revisional outcome. Indications for re-operative surgery must be tailored to improve the quality and longevity of each individual patient’s life. Long term studies are required to investigate and validate quality of life as an indication for revisional surgery.

Esophagopericardial fistula: an unexpected dreaded complication of treatment of leak following revisional sleeve gastrectomy by endoscopic internal drainage

Esophagopericardial fistula (EPF) is an uncommon but life-threatening complication of upper gastrointestinal tract surgery or endoscopy, which is related to anastomotic breakdown, chronic infection or esophageal traumatism. We first describe the first case of an EPF secondary to double pigtail drain migration: an endoscopic internal approach for the treatment of leak following revisional sleeve gastrectomy.

Systematic review of patient education practices in weight loss surgery

BACKGROUND

Education plays a key role in adherence to lifestyle modifications after weight loss surgery (WLS). Education given before and after surgery may decrease weight recidivism rates and improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze educational practices in bariatric centers.

METHODS

The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health and PubMed databases were searched in May 2016 for English-language, peer-reviewed studies about WLS patient education practices from 1999 to 2016. Publications were: (1) rated with the Advancing Research and Clinical Practice through Close Collaboration levels of evidence hierarchy (see Melnyk's pryamid [http://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=282802&p=1888246]) and (2) analyzed according to surgical phase, curriculum, program delivery, and educator.

RESULTS

Twenty-four publications met the study criteria. Evidence ratings for preoperative (n = 16) and postoperative studies (n = 8) were levels I to III (n = 5) and IV to VII (n = 17). Two publications were not ratable. Preoperative and postoperative education programs varied in curriculum, teaching methods, and educator. Topics varied in depth. Commonalities were surgical procedure, nutrition, activity, and psychosocial behaviors. Preoperative education was mostly provided in small groups, whereas individual sessions were used postoperatively. Lecture and discussion provided by myriad of healthcare experts from multiple disciplines were typical in both phases. Written or web-based aides supported learning needs in both phases.

CONCLUSION

WLS patient education varied by curriculum and dose and commonly used passive learning methods (e.g., traditional lecture style instruction with minimal engagement from learners). Results shared can inform future bariatric education programs and accreditation standard development (e.g., Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program patient education standards). Additional study is needed, but existing evidence can guide improvements in high-quality, cost-effective, and patient-centered educational programs.

The medicalization of obesity, bariatric surgery, and population health

This article examines how the medicalization of obesity validates the use of bariatric surgery to treat obesity in the United States and how expansions in access to bariatric surgery normalize surgical procedures as disease treatment and prevention tools. Building on this discussion, the article poses two questions for population health regarding health technology: (1) to what extent does bariatric surgery treat obesity in the United States while diverting attention away from the ultimate drivers of the epidemic and (2) to what extent does bariatric surgery improve outcomes for some groups in the US population while simultaneously generating disparities? We conduct a brief, historical analysis of the American Medical Association’s decision to reclassify obesity as a disease through internal documents, peer-reviewed expert reports, and major media coverage. We use medicalization theory to show how this decision by the American Medical Association channels increased focus on obesity into the realm of medical intervention, particularly bariatric surgery, and use this evidence to review research trends on bariatric surgery. We propose research questions that investigate the population health dimensions of bariatric surgery in the United States and note key areas of future research. Our objective is to generate a discourse that considers bariatric surgery beyond the medical realm to better understand how technological interventions might work collectively with population-level obesity prevention efforts and how, in turn, population health approaches may improve bariatric surgery outcomes.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: experience in 50 patients after 1 to 3 years of follow-up

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is currently one of the most frequently performed bariatric interventions worldwide due to its simplicity and good weight loss results. Nevertheless, SG failure and complications are increasingly being observed as the number of procedures increases.

OBJECTIVES

To report our results in converting SG to revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-LRYGB).

SETTING

University Hospital, Chile.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of our bariatric surgery database. Patients who underwent R-LRYGB after SG between June 2005 and April 2015 were identified. Demographic characteristics, anthropometrics, preoperative workup, and perioperative data were retrieved. Total weight loss (TWL), excess weight loss (EWL), and clinical progression over 3 years were registered.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were identified, mean age 39±8.4 years, 42 (84%) women; median body mass index previous to R-LRYGB was 33.8 (31-36) kg/m². Indications for revision were weight regain (n = 28, 56%), gastroesophageal reflux disease (n = 16, 32%), and gastric stenosis (n = 6, 12%). In weight-regain patients, mean follow-up at 3 years was 72.2% and median percentage of total weight loss at 12 and 36 months was 18.5 (12-24) and 19.3 (8-23), respectively; percentage of excess weight loss at 12 and 36 months was 60.7 (37-82) and 66.9 (26-90), respectively. Over 90% of gastroesophageal reflux disease patients resolved or improved symptoms. All patients with gastric stenosis resolved symptoms after conversion. There were no major complications.

CONCLUSION

R-LRYGB is a feasible, effective, and well-tolerated alternative in selected patients with failed SG in which other therapies have been insufficient to either maintain weight loss or resolve complications. However, long-term follow-up is still needed.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as a Reoperative Bariatric Procedure

BACKGROUND

We evaluate the outcomes of robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) as a reoperative bariatric procedure (RBP).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was done from 2007 to 2014, and all the patients who underwent RRYGB as a RBP at a teaching university hospital were included.

RESULTS

A total of 32 patients underwent RRYGB as a reoperation from adjustable gastric band (AGB n = 16) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG n = 11) or previous gastric bypass (n = 5). Twenty patients underwent conversion to RRYGB due to weight loss failure, either after AGB (n = 13) or SG (n = 7). Twelve patients underwent reoperation because of complications of index procedure. Mean preoperative weight was 109.7 ± 29.5 kg, and BMI was 40 ± 10.6 kg/m(2). The mean operative time for RRYGB was 226 ± 45.3 min with a blood loss of 20 ± 15.9 ml. Average length of stay was 3 days. In two cases, pin point leaks were detected intraoperatively during check gastroscopy, and they were repaired with sutures. There were no postoperative anastomotic leaks or hemorrhage or gastrojejunostomy strictures. None of the patients required a blood transfusion or reoperation within perioperative period. In the patients who underwent RRYGB for weight loss failure (n = 20), the mean excess weight loss (EWL) was 39.2% at 6 months (n = 11), 53.8% at 1 year (n = 13), and 60.7% at 2 years (n = 6).

CONCLUSIONS

RRYGB is safe and effective to be used as a revisional bariatric procedure. The weight loss outcomes and complication rates compare favorably with the published results of laparoscopic technique, although the small sample size may not be enough to reach definite conclusions.

Outcomes of a third bariatric procedure for inadequate weight loss

Background and Objectives:

The robust volume of bariatric surgical procedures has led to significant numbers of patients requiring reoperative surgery because of undesirable results from primary operations. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of the third bariatric procedure after previous attempts resulted in inadequate results.

Methods:

We retrospectively identified patients who underwent a third bariatric procedure for inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain after the second operation. Data were analyzed to establish patient demographic characteristics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes.

Results:

A total of 12 patients were identified. Before the first, second, and third procedures, patients had a mean body mass index of 67.1 ± 29.3 kg/m², 60.9 ± 28.3 kg/m², and 49.4 ± 19.8 kg/m², respectively. The third operations (laparoscopic in 10 and open in 2) included Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 5), revision of pouch and/or stoma of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 3), limb lengthening after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 3), and sleeve gastrectomy (n = 1). We encountered 5 early complications in 4 patients, and early reoperative intervention was needed in 2 patients. At 1-year follow-up, the excess weight loss of the cohort was 49.4% ± 33.8%. After a mean follow-up time of 43.0 ± 28.6 months, the body mass index of the cohort reached 39.9 ± 20.8 kg/m², which corresponded to a mean excess weight loss of 54.4% ± 44.0% from the third operation. At the latest follow-up, 64% of patients had excess weight loss >50% and 45% had excess weight loss >80%.

Conclusion:

Reoperative bariatric surgery can be carried out successfully (often laparoscopically), even after 2 previous weight loss procedures.

Laparoscopic hand-sewn revisional gastrojejunal plication for weight loss failure after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery has become a widely accepted alternative for weight loss failure/regain after bariatric surgery. However, it is associated to higher morbi-mortality and lesser weight loss than primary bariatric procedure. Our aims are to present a novel technique for weight loss treatment after failed laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and to report its short-term results.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of patients submitted to a revisional hand-sewn double-layer gastrojejunal plication (GJP) for treatment of weight loss failure/regain after LRYGB. Analysis of demographics, body mass index (BMI), and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at the 6th month complications, and financial costs involved was included.

RESULTS

Four patients were submitted to revisional GJP. Three patients were female and the mean age at revision was 30 ± 9 years (21-44). The median time interval between LRYGB and GJP was 51 months (24-120). The median BMI at the moment of GJP and the 3rd and 6th month was 35.6 kg/m2 (32.0-37.8), 32.2 kg/m2 (29.7-34.1), and 30.7 kg/m2 (28.1-32.1), respectively. The median %EWL at the 3rd and 6th month was 35.4% (13.6-38.9) and 46.2 % (45.1-55.5), respectively, reaching a cumulative (combined surgeries) %EWL of 62.9% (16.5-67.9) and 71.7% (65.1-77.6), respectively. There were no complications or mortality. Financial costs were significantly lower compared to revisional gastrojejunal stapled reduction (US $1400 cheaper).

CONCLUSION

Revisional GJP is a feasible, safe, and cost-effective novel procedure for treatment of weight loss failure/regain after LRYGB. Mid- and long-term results are necessary in order to establish its real effectiveness.

Revisional bariatric surgery following failed primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review

Revisional bariatric surgery following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) failure presents a clinical challenge for the bariatric surgeon. Limited evidence exists in selecting the appropriate revisional operation: laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB), laparoscopic re-sleeve gastrectomy (LRSG), or other surgical intervention (OSI), to address weight regain. We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the efficacy of existing revisional surgery. A comprehensive search of electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) was completed. All randomized controlled trials, non-randomized comparison study, and case series were included. Eleven primary studies (218 patients) were identified and included in the systematic review. Studies were grouped into three main categories: LGB, LRSG, and OSI. Preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 41.9 kg/m(2) (LGB), 38.5 kg/m(2) (LRSG), and 44.4 kg/m(2) (OSI). After conversion to LGB, BMI decreased to 33.7 and 35.7 kg/m(2) at 12 and 24 months of follow-up, respectively. Excess weight loss (EWL) was 60 and 48 % over the same periods. After LRSG, BMI decreased to 30.4 and 35.3 kg/m(2) with corresponding EWL of 68 and 44 %, at 12 and 24 months, respectively. After OSI, BMI decreased to 27.3 kg/m(2) with an EWL of 75 % at 24-month follow-up but could not be analyzed due to incomplete data collection in primary studies. Both LGB and LRSG achieve effective weight loss following failed LSG. The less technically challenging nature of LRSG may be more widely applicable. Further research is required to elicit sustainability in long-term weight loss benefits.

[Gastric band erosion: Alternative management]

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a public health problem, for which the prevalence has increased worldwide at an alarming rate, affecting 1.7 billion people in the world.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the technique employed in incomplete penetration of gastric band where endoscopic management and/or primary closure is not feasible.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Laparoscopic removal of gastric band was performed in five patients with incomplete penetrance using Foley catheterization in the perforation site that could lead to the development of a gastro-cutaneous fistula.

CLINICAL CASES

The cases presented include a leak that required surgical lavage with satisfactory outcome, and one patient developed stenosis 3 years after surgical management, which was resolved endoscopically. In all cases, the penetration site closed spontaneously.

DISCUSSION

Gastric band erosion has been reported in 3.4% of cases. The reason for inserting a catheter is to create a controlled gastro-cutaneous fistula, allowing spontaneous closure.

CONCLUSIONS

Various techniques have been described: the totally endoscopic, hybrid techniques (endoscopic/laparoscopic) and completely laparoscopic. A technique is described here that is useful and successful in cases where the above-described treatments are not viable.

Primary silicone-banded laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Some degree of inadequate weight loss or recidivism is seen with all bariatric surgical approaches. To combat this, some authors have suggested placing a reinforcing ring around gastric bypass pouches or gastric sleeves. The aim of this study was to assess the initial feasibility and efficacy of silicone-banded laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All cases of silicone-banded LSG performed at our center were retrospectively identified. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients (7 females, 6 males) were identified and analyzed. Preoperatively, patients had a mean age of 56.0 ± 8.3 years, a mean body mass index (BMI) of 53.7 ± 8.5 kg/m(2), and a median of seven comorbidities. All cases were completed laparoscopically by one surgeon, with a mean operative time of 140.7 ± 25.7 minutes and a mean estimated blood loss of 56.9 ± 30.6 mL. There were no mortalities. The only intraoperative complication was a respiratory arrest after extubation, and this patient recovered fully. Postoperatively, 2 patients (15.4%) experienced a complication: one had a pulmonary embolism requiring brief re-admission, and the other had a syncopal episode from a second-degree atrioventricular block. No long-term complications were encountered. One patient was lost to follow-up. At a median follow-up of 16 months (range, 6-27 months), the mean BMI of the cohort was 38.7 ± 7.9 kg/m(2), which corresponded to a mean excess weight loss (EWL) of 54.8 ± 19.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

This report provides initial evidence that silicone-banded LSG is feasible and can be performed with minimal morbidity and significant EWL at short-term follow-up.

Worthy or not? Six-year experience of revisional bariatric surgery from an Asian center of excellence

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is increasing. The various primary operations with their distinctive complications make this group of patients quite heterogeneous, and treatment has to be individualized. There are concerns regarding the safety profile and efficacy of these procedures. The objective of the present study was to analyze the indications, safety, and efficacy of RBS at a high-volume Asian center and provide insight into the different treatment options.

METHODS

Of a total of 1578 bariatric surgeries from July 2006 to June 2012, 52 patients underwent revisional bariatric procedures. The primary operations included 6 different procedures. The indications for surgery were grouped into weight loss failure (n = 21) or complications related to the primary operation (n = 31). The revisional operations performed were conversion to another procedure (n = 22), revision of existing anatomy (n = 29), or reversal to normal anatomy (n = 1).

RESULTS

96% of revisional surgeries were performed laparoscopically. The median operating time was 72 minutes (25-240 min), and the median duration of hospital stay was 4 days (3-25 d). The mean body mass index for weight loss failure decreased significantly from 36.3 to 29.6 kg/m(2) after 1 year of revisional surgery (P<.01). However, revision of RYGB was only associated with a body mass index loss of 3.2 kg/m(2) and percentage of excess weight loss of 31.8%. More than 90% of the patients with complications had complete resolution of their preoperative symptoms. There were 3 major complications with an overall morbidity rate of 5.8%. There was no mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

RBS is well-tolerated, with satisfactory early outcomes, in high-volume centers. However, larger studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to determine the long-term efficacy of these procedures.

Lifestyle management for enhancing outcomes after bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgery has been safe and effective for treatment of severe obesity and comorbidities like type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). Nonetheless, weight loss and health outcomes vary considerably across individuals. Although the factors associated with outcomes are not fully understood, postoperative weight loss following any type of bariatric surgery is largely dependent on the extent to which patients can make and sustain changes in eating and activity. Therefore, lifestyle management including diet, exercise, and behavior modification is critical to helping patients achieve long-term weight loss. Pharmacotherapy and reoperation may also play a role after bariatric surgery. In this article, we highlight recent research findings in all of these areas to provide suggestions for how to enhance outcomes following bariatric surgery. Research on the mechanisms for weight loss and improvements in T2D following the different surgical procedures is needed to support the development of more personalized approaches to the multidisciplinary management of severe obesity.

Sustained weight loss after gastric banding revision for pouch-related problems

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) on weight loss at 12 and 24 months.

BACKGROUND

There is no uniform consensus as to the optimal procedure for patients requiring revision after LAGB. Few studies address the issue of weight loss after band salvage procedures, despite this being a critical factor in deciding which reoperative procedure to choose.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of adult patients who underwent LAGB from January 1, 2001 to June 30, 2009 at a single institution. Patients who required revision for pouch-related problems including band slippage, pouch dilation, and hiatal hernia were studied. Demographic data, body mass index (BMI), percentage excess weight loss (% EWL), and operative details were recorded. Weights were recorded at 12 and 24 months after revision. These were compared with initial weight, weight before revision, and weight in patients who did not have a reoperation.

RESULTS

Of 3876 patients, 390 patients were included in analysis of weight outcomes after revision. The procedure-related mortality was 0%. Early (30-day) complications occurred in 0.5%, late complications (erosion) in 0.5%, and 29 patients (7.4%) required a second revision. For patients undergoing revision, the initial weight was 124.06 ± 21.28 kg and BMI was 44.80 ± 6.12 kg/m. At reoperation, weight was 89.18 ± 20.51 kg, BMI was 32.25 ± 6.50 kg/m and, %EWL was 54.13 ± 21.80%. Twelve months postrevision, weight was 92.24 ± 20.22 kg, BMI was 33.32 ± 6.41 kg/m, and %EWL was 48.81 ± 22.71%. Weight was 92.42 ± 19.91 kg, BMI was 33.53 ± 6.25 kg/m, and %EWL was 47.50 ± 22.91% twenty-four months postrevision.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperation for pouch-related problems after LAGB is safe and effective. Weight loss is maintained after reoperation.

Revisional bariatric surgery for unsuccessful weight loss and complications

BACKGROUND

There are growing numbers of patients who require revisional bariatric surgery due to the undesirable results of their primary procedures. The aim of this study was to review our experience with bariatric patients undergoing revisional surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis to review the indications for revisional bariatric procedures and assess their postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

From 04/04 to 01/11, 2,918 patients underwent bariatric surgery at our institution. A total of 154 patients (5.3%) of these cases were coded as revisional procedures. The mean age at revision was 49.1 ± 11.3 and the mean BMI was 44.0 ± 13.7 kg/m2. Revisional surgery was performed laparoscopically in 121 patients (78.6%). Laparoscopic revisions had less blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and fewer complications compared to open revisions. Two groups (A and B) were defined by the indication for revision: patients with unsuccessful weight loss (group A, n = 106) and patients with complications of their primary procedures (group B, n = 48). In group A, 74.5% of the patients were revised to a bypass procedure and 25.5% to a restrictive procedure. Mean excess weight loss was 53.7 ± 29.3% after revision of primary restrictive procedures and 37.6 ± 35.1% after revision of bypass procedures at >1-year follow-up (p < 0.05). In group B, the complications prompting revision were effectively treated by revisional surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional bariatric surgery effectively treated the undesirable results from primary bariatric surgery. Laparoscopic revisional surgery can be performed after both failed open and laparoscopic bariatric procedures without a prohibitive complication rate. Carefully selected patients undergoing revision for weight regain have satisfactory additional weight loss.

Single-stage versus 2-stage sleeve gastrectomy as a conversion after failed adjustable gastric banding: 30-day outcomes

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is being performed as a conversion after adjustable gastric banding (AGB), often in a single stage. However, some argue that it should be performed in 2 stages to improve safety. Few studies compare complications between 1-stage and 2-stage procedures. Our aim is to compare the 30-day complication rates among these two groups.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients converted from AGB to SG between 8/2008 and 10/2013 and compared patients undergoing 1-stage and 2-stage techniques. Primary outcome was overall 30-day adverse event rate (postoperative complication, readmission, or reoperation). Secondary outcomes included operating room (OR) time, length of stay (LOS), leak, infection, and bleeding rates, as well as mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients underwent SG after band removal; three were excluded due to short follow-up, leaving 60 1-stage and 20 2-stage. Mean time from band removal to SG for 2-stage was 438 days. Demographics, intraoperative technique (bougie size, staple reinforcement, oversewing staple line, and leak test), and mean follow-up were not statistically different. Mean OR time (132.1 min 1-stage vs. 127.8 min 2-stage, p = 0.702) and LOS (3.1 vs. 2.4 days, p = 0.676) were similar. Overall 30-day adverse event rate was 12 % for 1-stage versus 15 % for 2-stage procedures (p = 0.705). Differences in 30-day readmission (8 vs. 5 %) and reoperation (5 vs. 0 %) were not statistically significant (p = 0.999 and 0.569, respectively). Leak (3 vs. 0 %, p = 0.999), abscess (2 vs. 5 %, p = 0.440), and bleeding rates (2 vs. 0 %, p = 0.999) were not different. There were no deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

SG performed as a conversion after AGB is safe and feasible. Our findings indicate no statistical difference in 30-day outcomes when performed in 1 or 2 stages. Future studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to further investigate these differences.

Laparoscopy for primary and secondary bariatric procedures

Recently obesity has been defined as a disease and has turned bariatric surgery into a part of a chronic illness management. Obesity induces several comorbidities leading to cardiovascular disease and mortality. The effects of bariatric surgery on these comorbidities used to be classified as weight-loss induced. However bariatric surgery has recently been termed metabolic surgery because of the suspected direct, weight loss independent effect of bariatric procedures on the physiopathological mechanisms causing excess fat storage and insulin resistance. This review describes the standard procedures commonly performed and their specific outcomes on metabolic diseases in order to work towards more patient tailored treatment of obesity and to reduce side effects. Furthermore this review focuses on gaps in understanding the pathogenesis of obesity and its treatment with bariatric surgery. Surgery failures as well as new techniques are discussed and evaluated.

Tratamento de curto prazo com liraglutide no reganho de peso após cirurgia bariátrica

OBJETIVO: avaliar os resultados da utilização do liraglutide em um grupo de pacientes submetidos ao tratamento cirúrgico da obesidade mórbida com perda insatisfatória de peso ou ganho de mais de 15% do seu peso mínimo atingido. MÉTODOS: realizou-se análise retrospectiva de 15 pacientes operados que tiveram perda de excesso de peso <50% após dois anos de seguimento ou reganho de peso de mais de 15% do peso mínimo atingido. Foram incluídos apenas pacientes que apresentavam a "anatomia cirúrgica" normal avaliada por radiografia contrastada e endoscopia digestiva alta. A média de idade foi 47,2±12,5 anos e os pacientes receberam liraglutide na dose de 1,2 a 3,0mg/dia por oito a 28 semanas de seguimento. RESULTADOS: o tratamento cirúrgico induziu uma perda de peso de 34,1± 16,5Kg. A média de reganho de peso após 5,3 ±3,3 anos foi 14,2±12,1Kg. A media de peso reduziu significativamente após o tratamento com liraglutide (100,9±18,3Kg vs. 93,5±17,4Kg; p<0,0001). Seis pacientes apresentaram náuseas e dois descontinuaram o tratamento em decorrência do custo da medicação. CONCLUSÃO: o tratamento clínico medicamentoso dirigido para o controle da saciedade com o uso do liraglutide pode ser uma alternativa para manejo dos pacientes com reganho de peso ou perda insuficiente após o tratamento cirúrgico, quando nenhum problema técnico tenha sido identificado.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient--2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery

The development of these updated guidelines was commissioned by the AACE, TOS, and ASMBS Board of Directors and adheres to the AACE 2010 protocol for standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Each recommendation was re-evaluated and updated based on the evidence and subjective factors per protocol. Examples of expanded topics in this update include: the roles of sleeve gastrectomy, bariatric surgery in patients with type-2 diabetes, bariatric surgery for patients with mild obesity, copper deficiency, informed consent, and behavioral issues. There are 74 recommendations (of which 56 are revised and 2 are new) in this 2013 update, compared with 164 original recommendations in 2008. There are 403 citations, of which 33 (8.2%) are EL 1, 131 (32.5%) are EL 2, 170 (42.2%) are EL 3, and 69 (17.1%) are EL 4. There is a relatively high proportion (40.4%) of strong (EL 1 and 2) studies, compared with only 16.5% in the 2008 AACE-TOS-ASMBS CPG. These updated guidelines reflect recent additions to the evidence base. Bariatric surgery remains a safe and effective intervention for select patients with obesity. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient--2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery

The development of these updated guidelines was commissioned by the AACE, TOS, and ASMBS Board of Directors and adheres to the AACE 2010 protocol for standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Each recommendation was re-evaluated and updated based on the evidence and subjective factors per protocol. Examples of expanded topics in this update include: the roles of sleeve gastrectomy, bariatric surgery in patients with type-2 diabetes, bariatric surgery for patients with mild obesity, copper deficiency, informed consent, and behavioral issues. There are 74 recommendations (of which 56 are revised and 2 are new) in this 2013 update, compared with 164 original recommendations in 2008. There are 403 citations, of which 33 (8.2%) are EL 1, 131 (32.5%) are EL 2, 170 (42.2%) are EL 3, and 69 (17.1%) are EL 4. There is a relatively high proportion (40.4%) of strong (EL 1 and 2) studies, compared with only 16.5% in the 2008 AACE-TOS-ASMBS CPG. These updated guidelines reflect recent additions to the evidence base. Bariatric surgery remains a safe and effective intervention for select patients with obesity. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient--2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery

The development of these updated guidelines was commissioned by the AACE, TOS, and ASMBS Board of Directors and adheres to the AACE 2010 protocol for standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Each recommendation was re-evaluated and updated based on the evidence and subjective factors per protocol. Examples of expanded topics in this update include: the roles of sleeve gastrectomy, bariatric surgery in patients with type-2 diabetes, bariatric surgery for patients with mild obesity, copper deficiency, informed consent, and behavioral issues. There are 74 recommendations (of which 56 are revised and 2 are new) in this 2013 update, compared with 164 original recommendations in 2008. There are 403 citations, of which 33 (8.2%) are EL 1, 131 (32.5%) are EL 2, 170 (42.2%) are EL 3, and 69 (17.1%) are EL 4. There is a relatively high proportion (40.4%) of strong (EL 1 and 2) studies, compared with only 16.5% in the 2008 AACE-TOS-ASMBS CPG. These updated guidelines reflect recent additions to the evidence base. Bariatric surgery remains a safe and effective intervention for select patients with obesity. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.