[Sleeve gastrectomy as a revision procedure for failed gastric banding]

Revision Procedures After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding: Comparison of Efficacy and Safety

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was one of the commonly performed bariatric operations; however, it carries a high revision rate. The aim of the present study was to report the long-term outcomes of LAGB and compare the outcomes between the different revision procedures.

METHODS

All patients who underwent LAGB in a large bariatric center in Asia between May 2002 and April 2011 were included. Interval between primary LAGB to the revision operation, the reason and type of revision surgery were identified and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 275 consecutive patients were included. All of the procedures were completed laparoscopically with no major complications. The percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at 10-year follow-up was 45%. In this study, 53 patients (19.3%) had revision surgery, including with 26 single anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass (R-LSAGB) (49%), 17 sleeve gastrectomy (R-LSG) (32.1%), 9 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-LRYGB) (17%), and 1 other procedure (1.9%). A major complication occurred in 6 patients (11.3%). All of the follow-up patients with revision surgeries had %EWL > 50% at the 2-year follow-up. R-LSAGB patients achieved better weight loss than those who underwent R-LSG and R-LRYGB (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term result for weight loss after LAGB is unsatisfactory. The revision of failed LAGB to other bariatric surgeries is safe and can be performed in one stage with a low complication rate. Patients who underwent R-LSAGB had better weight loss results than the R-LSG or R-LRYGB patients.

Analysis of Morbidity Data of 308 Cases of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy--the Soroka Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) became a prevalent bariatric procedure in Israel, while laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was losing ground, due to high failure rates (40 % at 10 years). Many patients after LAGB failure choose LSG as a further bariatric surgery (secondary LSG). However, LAGB often impairs upper stomach anatomy and physiology, which may contribute to complications increased risk after secondary LSG, in comparison to surgery-naive obese patients choosing LSG (primary LSG).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on a prospective database, looking at morbidly obese patients for LSG surgery. All procedures were done by a single surgeon at the Soroka Medical Center between January 2008 and March 2013. Data were collected from hospitalization charts on demographics, biometric and bariatric status, medical and bariatric surgical history, post-LSG morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

Three hundred eight patients underwent LSG during the study period, 181 (58.8 %) had a primary LSG while 127 (41.2 %) had a secondary LSG. No mortality occurred in both groups. Odds ratio for major complication (leak, stenosis) was 3.12 [CI 0.90-10.75] among the secondary LSG group, compared to the primary LSG (p = 0.071). The risk for major complication was doubled (OR = 2, 95 % CI [1.36-3.06]) for each one of previous bariatric procedure underwent (p = 0.001). Significant differences were found between the two groups regarding number and length of readmissions and number of imaging tests (p value = 0.027, 0.022, and 0.049, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary LSG is a safe and efficient bariatric procedure. After failed LAGB, secondary LSG should be carefully considered, because of a potentially higher risk of complications.

Revisions after failed gastric band: sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic gastric band is an appealing bariatric operation due to its simplicity and good short-term outcomes; however, it is associated with complications (slippage, erosion, prolapse) and failure in reaching target weight loss. This study describes our experience with failed gastric bands that required a revisional procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective analysis includes all consecutive patients who underwent a gastric band removal and revisional surgery in our hospital from January 2008 to June 2014. A total of 81 patients were identified and divided in three groups: Group one included patients who just had the gastric band removed (43), group two consisted of patients who underwent a conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (26), and group three included patients who required a conversion to Roux-en Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (12). Patient demographics, date of gastric band placement, indications for revision, postoperative morbidity and mortality, operating time, blood loss, length of stay, and % excess weight loss (%EWL) were recorded. Perioperative and clinical outcomes were compared between conversions to SG and RYGB.

RESULTS

In group two (n = 26), 21 conversions to SG were performed in concurrence with the band removal as a one-stage operation, while five procedures were performed in two-stages. There were no complications and no case was converted to open. Patients who underwent a one-stage procedure had a longer operative time, although it did not reach statistical significance. In group three, 12 patients underwent a conversion to RYGB as a revisional operation; 11 were performed as a one-stage procedure and only one patient underwent a two-stage procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

SG and RYGB are safe options to revise a failed gastric band. Both groups who received either a SG or RYGB had a low complication rate and acceptable %EWL with no statistical difference between the two.