Strategies for weight regain after sleeve gastrectomy

ReSleeve or revisional one anastomosis gastric bypass for failed primary sleeve gastrectomy with dilated gastric tube: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) has been increasingly performed due to weight loss failure (WLF). Many revisional procedures have been proposed after primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (pLSG) failure, including ReSleeve gastrectomy (ReLSG), and laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (LOAGB). Choosing the RBS post-pLSG failure represents a challenge. WLF without gastric tube (GT) dilation is undoubtedly converted to a malabsorptive procedure, but the presence of GT dilation makes it more difficult to select a RBS. This study aimed to compare two relatively simple revisional procedures after pLSG failure with dilated GT to help decision making on which procedure better done to which patient.

METHODS

Data of 52 patients who completed one year follow-up (FU) after their RBS (ReLSG: 27 or LOAGB: 25) for their failed pLSG were collected, assessed, correlated to weight loss (WL) and compared.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 97 ± 18.4 min. with revisional LOAGB (RLOAGB) and 62 ± 11 min. with ReLSG. Six patients (11.5%) had seven postoperative procedure-specific complications. Significant hemorrhage occurred in three patients. Two cases of leakage were encountered with each procedure. LOAGB Patients had lower mean final weight (76.2 ± 10.5 vs 85.3 ± 13), lower mean Final BMI (26.4 ± 2.5 vs 29.7 ± 2.9) and higher mean percentage of excess weight loss (EWL%) (83.6 ± 13.5% vs 60.29 ± 14.6%). All RLOAGB patients and 77.8% of ReLSG patients had EWL% > 50%. RLOAGB patients had higher EWL% compared to ReLSG (p < 0.001). Insufficient WL (IWL) patients had higher EWL% compared to weight regain (WR) patients (p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Both procedures (RLOAGB and ReLSG) were relatively safe and effective in terms of WL. RLOAGB led to higher WL compared to ReLSG in all types of patients despite higher Caloric intake. IWL patients had more WL compared to WR patients. WL was not related to GT dilation type. Large-scale longer-FU studies are still needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PACTR202310644487566 (retrospectively registered).

A Multi-institutional Study on the Mid-Term Outcomes of Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass as a Surgical Revision Option After Sleeve Gastrectomy

INTRODUCTION

Recently, a single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) has become increasingly popular for patients with BMI > 50 as a primary or staged surgery. Staging allows surgeons to do the sleeve gastrectomy (SG) first with the conversion only happening when a failure or technical challenge is identified.

PURPOSE

We present the mid-term outcomes of SADI bypass surgery after SG.

METHOD

A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospective database from four institutions. Ninety-six patients were identified from 2013 to 2018. Patients were divided into two groups: one had two-stage SADI because of insufficient weight loss, the second had planned two-stage SADI because of super obesity (BMI > 50 kg/m²). Incidence of complications was divided into < 30 days and > 30 days.

RESULT

Of 96 patients, 3 patients were completely lost to follow-up. The mean age was 44.8 ± 11.3 years. There were no deaths or conversion to open surgery. The postoperative early complication and late complication rate was 5.3% and 6.4% respectively. At 24 months, group 2 had higher %weight loss (WL) and change in BMI units compared to group 1 with statistically significant difference. The average WL and change in BMI for entire patient's population at 24 months after 2nd stage SADI was 20.5% and 9.4 units respectively. The remission rate for DM was 93.7% with or without the use of medication.

CONCLUSION

The two-stage approach to SADI-S appears technically simpler than a single compromised operation. However, this approach needs more patients to understand its limitations.

Single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal - new revision procedure in a patient with insufficient weight loss after sleeve gastrectomy

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is one of the most popular and effective bariatric surgical procedures worldwide. The effect of LSG is mostly dependent on the restrictive mechanism, which makes it more vulnerable to failure. Failing of bariatric procedure is not uncommon and occurs in 6% to 23%. In case of weight loss failure, there are no hard recommendations on the choice of the redo procedure. One of the most novel options, introduced in 2007, relatively simple to perform following LSG is single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass. Herein we describe surgical technique and history of a patient with inadequate weight loss after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, who underwent single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass.

Revision of primary sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: indications and outcomes from a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has become an accepted primary bariatric operation. Like other bariatric operations, inadequate weight loss and complications have been reported.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the indications and outcomes of revision of SG to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) at a single community hospital.

SETTING

Community hospital, United States.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database identifying SG operations done from February 2009 to June 2014. All patients who underwent revision from SG to RYGB were studied.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients underwent revision of SG to RYGB. Mean time to revision was 26 months (range, 2-60 mo) and mean follow up after RYGB was 20 months (range, 4-48 mo). Indications for revision were reflux (n = 14), inadequate weight loss (n = 11), reflux and inadequate weight loss (n = 16), stricture (n = 4), chronic leak (n = 1), and recurrent diabetes and reflux (n = 2). Reflux symptoms resolved in 96% of patients after revision, and hiatal hernias were repaired in 50% of patients. Percentage total weight loss at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months was 9.0%, 12.9%, 15.7%, 13.3%, and 6.5%, respectively. The overall rate of complication was 31%. There were no mortalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision of SG to RYGB is a potentially effective means of treating SG complications, particularly reflux. Reflux was the most common indication for revision and was often associated with a hiatal hernia. Further studies will be necessary to evaluate the long-term maintenance of additional weight loss after revision of SG to RYGB.

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.