Revisional Surgeries of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

Safety of redo sleeve gastrectomy as a primary revisional procedure

BACKGROUND

Insufficient weight loss after primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) occasionally requires revisional surgery. A few single-institution studies have examined the safety of redo LSG (RSG) and have shown mixed results.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of RSG compared with LSG over a period of 30 days.

SETTING

University of Southern California, United States; Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database.

METHODS

The 2020-2021 MBSAQIP registry was used to evaluate patients who underwent RSG. Thirty-day outcomes were evaluated using univariable analysis and multivariable logistic and linear regression.

RESULTS

A total of 226,029 patients were reviewed, of whom 1454 (.7%) underwent RSG and 224,575 (99.3%) underwent initial LSG. Patients who underwent RSG were older (45 versus 42 yr), predominantly female (86.2% versus 81.3%), had a lower body mass index (40.0 versus 43.4), fewer co-morbidities, and greater rates of gastroesophageal reflux (38.7% versus 25.1%). They demonstrated increased overall complications (3.6% versus 2.1%, P < .001) and a longer operative time (81 versus 62 min, P < .001), but there was no difference in mortality. On multivariable analysis, patients who underwent RSG were independently associated with an increased risk of overall postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.493, P = .018), organ space infection (OR: 6.231, P < .001), staple line leak (OR: 12.838, P < .001), pneumonia (OR: 3.85, P = .013), ventilator requirement over 48 hours (OR: 6.404, P = .035), sepsis (OR: 4.397, P = .010), septic shock (OR: 8.669, P < .001), reoperation (OR: 1.808, P = .013), readmission (OR: 2.104, P < .001), reintervention (OR: 4.435, P < .001), and longer operative times (β = 12.790, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this national database study, RSG was associated with increased rates of postoperative complications and a longer operative time. Although these results are concerning, further studies are required to examine long-term outcomes.

Gastric mucocele after conversion of open butterfly gastroplasty to Roux-En-Y gastric bypass - A case report with a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

There has been a significant increase in the prevalence of morbid obesity across the globe. Various non-surgical weight loss options have shown limited long-term efficacy, leading to the popularity of surgical treatment alternatives with long-term efficacy.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

This case report describes the development of a gastric mucocele in a 51-year-old female patient. The patient initially underwent open butterfly gastroplasty in August 2016. Seven years later, she presented with severe symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). After further diagnostic evaluations, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y bypass surgery was performed. However, the patient experienced complications including fever, abdominal pain, and fluid collection around the stomach. Conservative management initially helped, but persistent symptoms led to laparoscopic exploration, which revealed a distended remnant stomach forming a gastric mucocele. Severe adhesions hindered attempts to remove the remnant stomach, resulting in the need for gastro-gastric anastomosis. Following the surgery, the patient had no symptoms, could eat solid food, and was discharged in good condition.

DISCUSSION

Although various non-surgical weight loss options such as diet modifications, lifestyle changes, and drug therapy have been used for weight loss, they have demonstrated limited long-term efficacy. Surgical treatment has demonstrated long-term efficacy in such patient groups. In recent years, there has been an increased popularity of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) due to long-term weight loss. However, in some cases, complications have also been reported.

CONCLUSION

This case emphasizes the challenges in managing complications from open butterfly gastroplasty and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surgeons should be aware of the possibility of gastric mucocele development and consider appropriate management strategies.

The Trajectory of Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Open to Laparoscopic to Robotic

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the most effective therapeutic intervention for patients with obesity, with sleeve gastrectomy (SG) being the most commonly performed primary MBS procedure. Long-term studies have demonstrated that 15-20% of patients require revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) due to weight-related issues or surgical complications. Despite the gold standard being laparoscopic revision, there are other available approaches such as open or robotic-assisted. An extensive literature review was performed for articles from their inception to February 2024. A descriptive review of MBS procedures (SG, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), single anastomosis duodeno-ileostomy (SADI) and biliopancreatic diversion-duodenal switch (BPD-DS)) was carried out to report and compare outcomes between primary and revisional bariatric surgery. A similar review was conducted to compare outcomes of revisional approaches (open, laparoscopic, robotic). RYGB remains the dominant RBS with a similar safety profile compared to revisional SADI and BPD-DS. In terms of the RBS surgical approach, all three options showed comparable short and long-term outcomes, with robotic RBS being associated with longer operative time and variable length of stay. Additional long-term studies are required to further validate our conclusions.

The Association Between Preoperative Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1 Levels and the Total Body Weight Loss in Women Post Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Despite the well-described optimal initial clinical response of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in the treatment of obesity, some patients do not achieve optimal initial clinical response. Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) has currently shown an association with post-bariatric surgery weight loss. This study aimed to assess the IGF-1 levels in female patients with obesity, the change after surgery, and their association with the metabolic profile and weight loss after surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective study that was conducted on adult female patients who were recruited for SG. The patients underwent clinical and laboratory investigations that included the IGF-1 measurement. At the 1-year follow-up, the same clinical and laboratory measures were repeated.

RESULTS

This study included 100 female patients. At the 1-year follow-up, there was a statistically significant reduction in body mass index (BMI) (p < 0.001), fasting HbA1C levels (p < 0.001), and triglycerides (p < 0.001), as well as a statistically significant increase in HDL (p < 0.001) and IGF-1 (p < 0.001). Multiple regression analysis revealed that, among the patients baseline characteristics, the significant predictors for the percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) were the patients' BMI (p < 0.001) and IGF-1 levels (p < 0.001). The ROC curve showed that an IGF1 cutoff value of ≤ 23 ng/ml detected suboptimal initial clinical response, with a sensitivity of 95.35% and a specificity of 100%.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the significant impact of SG on weight loss and metabolic improvements in female patients. Baseline IGF-1 levels emerged as a crucial predictor of optimal initial clinical response.

Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Revisional Bariatric Surgery: From Sleeve Gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most performed bariatric surgery worldwide. However, this surgery may be associated with long-term weight regain and severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), sometimes necessitating conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) to improve quality of life (QoL). We conducted a systematic review on QoL measures following the conversion of SG to RYGB. We searched various databases for studies conducted between January 2005 and September 2023. Four studies, involving 196 participants in total, met the inclusion criteria. Different assessment methods were used to evaluate QoL following the conversion. In the included studies, we observed that GERD symptoms and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use both decreased following conversion to RYGB. Excess weight loss (EWL) was also observed in all studies.

Weight Regain after Metabolic Surgery: Beyond the Surgical Failure

Patients undergoing metabolic surgery have factors ranging from anatomo-surgical, endocrine metabolic, eating patterns and physical activity, mental health and psychological factors. Some of the latter can explain the possible pathophysiological neuroendocrine, metabolic, and adaptive mechanisms that cause the high prevalence of weight regain in postbariatric patients. Even metabolic surgery has proven to be effective in reducing excess weight in patients with obesity; some of them regain weight after this intervention. In this vein, several studies have been conducted to search factors and mechanisms involved in weight regain, to stablish strategies to manage this complication by combining metabolic surgery with either lifestyle changes, behavioral therapies, pharmacotherapy, endoscopic interventions, or finally, surgical revision. The aim of this revision is to describe certain aspects and mechanisms behind weight regain after metabolic surgery, along with preventive and therapeutic strategies for this complication.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as Revisional Surgery Following Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most performed metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) worldwide, some patients require conversional procedures due to weight recurrence or late complications. Recently, one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) gained popularity as a viable option to address those problems. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the safety and efficacy of conversional OAGB after primary SG in the management of patients with obesity.

METHODS

Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for articles from their inception to February 2023 by two independent reviewers using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) system. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42023403528).

RESULTS

From 1,117 studies screened, twenty studies met the eligibility criteria, with a total of 1,057 patients with obesity undergoing conversional OAGB after primary SG. The mean age ranged from 28.2 to 49.5 years, and 744 patients (75.2%) were women. At one year after revisional OAGB, the pooled mean percent excess weight loss (%EWL) was 65.2% (95%CI: 56.9, 73.4, I2 = 97%). The pooled mean %EWL after conversional OAGB was 71.1% (95%CI: 62.2, 80.0, I2 = 90%) at two years and 71.6% (95%CI: 61.0, 82.2, I2 = 50%) at five years. Additionally, resolution rates of diabetes and hypertension were 65.4% (95%CI: 0.522, 0.785, I2 = 65%) and 58.9% (95%CI: 0.415, 0.762, I2 = 89%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrated OAGB as an effective conversional procedure after primary SG in terms of weight loss and obesity-associated medical problems for selected patients. Despite the promising results, further randomized controlled studies with larger sample sizes and more extended follow-up periods are necessary to determine if the OAGB is the best conversional surgery after SG.

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Versus One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as Revisional Surgery After Failed Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

This study aimed to assess the outcomes of revisional procedures, namely Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) following unsuccessful laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

Materials and Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 817 patients (404 in OAGB group, 413 in RYGB group) from seven retrospective comparative studies. Data on sample size, demographics, perioperative complications, operative time, pre- and post-revisional body mass index, total weight loss, and global weight loss over follow-up were extracted.

Results

The mean operative time was 98.2-201 minutes for RYGB versus 78.7-168 minutes for OAGB. Despite classical RYGB gastric bypass taking longer, mini gastric bypass resulted in greater weight loss than RYGB, with a mean difference of -5.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], -6.74 to -4.94; P<0.00001; I2=0%), greater total weight loss, and a higher diabetes remission rate (odds ratio [OR], 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.71). However, OAGB was associated with a significantly higher incidence of postoperative gastroesophageal reflux than RYGB (52 vs. 31: OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.67; P=0.0005; I2=0%).

Conclusion

OAGB was performed more quickly and boasted greater total weight loss and higher diabetes remission rates compared to RYGB after failed sleeve gastrectomy. However, OAGB also demonstrated a higher incidence of postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease. Thus, careful patient selection is essential when considering OAGB.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42023474966.

Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass (SADI) as a Second Step After Failed Sleeve Gastrectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

Our aim in this study is to assess single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (SADI) as a salvage procedure following sleeve gastrectomy (SG), examining its technical feasibility, outcomes, and potential complications.

Materials and Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, drawing data from PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane library. The analysis encompassed 14 studies, involving 1,066 patients. We evaluated operative time, comorbidity resolution (hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes), post-operative diarrhea incidence, excess weight loss (EWL) at six, twelve, and twenty-four months, and post-operative leak rates.

Results

SADI as a salvage procedure following SG yielded positive outcomes. Mean operative time was 125.98 minutes (95% CI 102.50-149.46, I2=99%). Importantly, SADI led to comorbidity resolution in a notable proportion of cases: hypertension in 48% (95% CI 38-57%, I2=44%), dyslipidemia in 55% (95% CI 40-69%, I2=30%), and diabetes in 63% (95% CI 53-72%, I2=30%) of patients. Post-operative diarrhea incidence was relatively low at 2% (95% CI 1-9%, I2=75%). In terms of weight loss, SADI patients exhibited substantial EWL: 47.73% (95% CI 37.86-57.61, I2=95%) at six months, 59.39% (95% CI 51.18-67.61, I2=95%) at twelve months, and 23.84% (95% CI 5.76-41.92, I2=100%). At twenty-four months. Furthermore, post-operative leak rate was relatively low, reported in only 1% (95% CI 0-5%, I2=80%) of cases.

Conclusion

SADI as a salvage procedure post-SG demonstrates technical feasibility and marked effectiveness. It offers substantial comorbidity resolution, significant weight loss, and low post-operative complication rates, notably post-operative leaks. Further research should investigate the long-term impact of SADI on patient nutritional status to facilitate its broader adoption.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Revisional Procedures after Sleeve Gastrectomy for Weight Recurrence or Inadequate Weight Loss: An Analysis of the MBSAQIP Database

INTRODUCTION

The safety of conversional bariatric procedures after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for weight recurrence (WR) or inadequate weight loss (IWL) is debated due to limited evidence. Conversion options include Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (SADI), and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS). We aimed to compare serious complications and mortality rates between these procedures within 30 days.

METHODS

Using the 2020 and 2021 MBSAQIP databases, we identified patients who underwent a conversion from SG to RYGB, SADI, or BPD-DS. We performed a multivariable logistic regression to assess predictors of 30-day complications and mortality.

RESULTS

Among 7388 patients (77.6% RYGB, 8.7% SADI, 13.7% BPD-DS), those undergoing SADI and BPD-DS had higher preoperative body mass index. Conversion reasons included WR (63.0%) and IWL (37.0%). SADI and BPD-DS patients had longer operative times (p < 0.001) and higher leak rates (p = 0.001). Serious complications, reoperations, readmissions, and 30-day mortality were similar across groups. Conversion procedure type was not an independent predictor of complications.

CONCLUSION

RYGB was the most performed conversional procedure after SG. The study indicated a similar safety profile for revisional RYGB, SADI, and BPD-DS, with comparable 30-day complications and mortality rates. However, SADI and BPD-DS patients had longer operative time and higher leak rates.

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy With Transit Loop Bipartition and Transit Bipartition in Type 2 Diabetic Patients With Obesity: A Retrospective Analysis

AIM

We aimed to compare 1-year postoperative results of patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with transit bipartition (LSG-TB) and transit loop bipartition (LSG-TLB) and mini gastric bypass (MGB).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective comparison of 2 novel bariatric surgery techniques with MGB. Primary outcome measure of the study was a rate of T2DM remission. Secondary outcomes included excess body mass index (BMI) loss, improvement in hepatosteatosis, and duration of operation. Revision surgery needs were also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 32 patients underwent the LSG-TLB, 15 underwent LSG-TB, and 50 underwent MGB. Mean age and sex distribution were comparable for all groups. Presurgical BMI was similar in MGB and LSG + TB groups, whereas LSG + TLB group had significantly lower BMI values compared with the MGB group. In both groups, BMI values reduced significantly compared with respective baseline values. Excess BMI loss was significantly higher in patients who underwent LSG-TLB compared with patients treated with LSG-TB and MGB. Bariatric surgery procedures lasted shorter in LSG-TLB than in LSG-TB. However, the shortest of all was MGB. The remission of T2DM rates were 71% and 73.3% in LSG-TLB and LSG-TB groups, respectively ( P > 9.999). The rate of revision surgeries was comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, LSG-TLB took less time and provided significantly higher excess BMI loss compared with LSG-TB. T2DM remission and improvement rates were similar in both groups. LSG-TLB seemed like a promising bariatric surgery technique in patients with obesity and T2DM.

Differences in Technical Aspects of Primary Sleeve Gastrectomy Prior to Redo Bariatric Surgery-A Multicenter Cohort Study (PROSS Study)

Background and Objectives: Although the technical simplicity of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is relatively well understood, many parts of the procedure differ according to bariatric surgeons. These technical variations may impact postoperative weight loss or the treatment of comorbidities and lead to qualification for redo procedures. Materials and Methods: A multicenter, observational, retrospective study was conducted among patients undergoing revision procedures. Patients were divided into three groups based on the indications for revisional surgery (insufficient weight loss or obesity-related comorbidities treatment, weight regain and development of complications). Results: The median bougie size was 36 (32-40) with significant difference (p = 0.04). In 246 (51.57%) patients, the resection part of sleeve gastrectomy was started 4 cm from the pylorus without significant difference (p = 0.065). The number of stapler cartridges used during the SG procedure was six staplers in group C (p = 0.529). The number of procedures in which the staple line was reinforced was the highest in group A (29.63%) with a significant difference (0.002). Cruroplasty was performed in 13 patients (p = 0.549). Conclusions: There were no differences between indications to redo surgery in terms of primary surgery parameters such as the number of staplers used or the length from the pylorus to begin resection. The bougie size was smaller in the group of patients with weight regain. Patients who had revision for insufficient weight loss were significantly more likely to have had their staple line oversewn. A potential cause could be a difference in the size of the removed portion of the stomach, but it is difficult to draw unequivocal conclusions within the limitations of our study.

Characteristics and outcomes for patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery due to persistent obesity: a retrospective cohort study of 10,589 patients

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery in an option for patients who experience weight regain or inadequate weight loss after primary elective bariatric procedures. However, there is conflicting data on safety outcomes of revisional procedures. We aim to characterize patient demographics, procedure type, and safety outcomes for those undergoing revisional compared to initial bariatric interventions to guide management of these patients.

METHODS

The 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) registry was analyzed, comparing primary elective to revisional bariatric procedures for inadequate weight loss. Bivariate analysis was performed to determine between group differences. Multivariable logistic regression determined factors associated with serious complications or mortality.

RESULTS

We evaluated 158,424 patients, including 10,589 (6.7%) revisional procedures. Patients undergoing revisional procedures were more like to be female (85.5% revisional vs. 81.0% initial; p < 0.001), had lower body mass index (43.6 ± 7.8 kg/m² revisional vs. 45.2 ± 7.8 kg/m² initial; p < 0.001), and less metabolic comorbidities than patients undergoing primary bariatric surgery. The most common revisional procedures were Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (48.4%) and sleeve gastrectomy (32.5%). Revisional procedures had longer operative duration compared to primary procedures. Patients undergoing revisional procedures were more likely to experience readmission to hospital (4.8% revisional vs. 2.9% initial; p < 0.001) and require reoperation (2.4% revisional vs. 1.0% initial; p < 0.001) within 30 days of the procedure. Revisional procedures were independently associated with increased serious complications (OR 1.49, CI 1.36-1.64, p < 0.001) but were not a significant predictor of 30-day mortality (OR 0.74, CI 0.36-1.50, p = 0.409).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to primary bariatric surgery, patients undergoing revisional procedures have less metabolic comorbidities. Revisional procedures have worse perioperative outcomes and are independently associated with serious complications. These data help to contextualize outcomes for patients undergoing revisional bariatric procedures and to inform decision making in these patients.

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.

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.

Clinical outcomes after one anastomosis gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy in super-super-obese patients

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery in super-super-obese (SSO) patients remains a continuous challenge due to intraabdominal fat masses, higher liver volume and existing comorbidities. A convenient procedure in SSO patients is one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of SSO patients undergoing OAGB in comparison to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from SSO patients who underwent OAGB and LSG in our institution between 2008 and 2020. Primary endpoints included percentage total body weight loss and percentage BMI loss at 12, 24, and 36 months after the operation. Secondary endpoints were perioperative complications, procedure length, length of hospital stay and outcome of comorbidities.

RESULTS

243 patients were included in this study. 93 patients underwent LSG and 150 underwent OAGB. At any of the time points evaluated, weight loss in patients after OAGB was greater than in LSG patients, while procedure length was significantly shorter for OAGB than LSG (81.4 vs. 92.1 min, p-value < 0.001). Additionally, mean length of hospital stay was shorter in the OAGB group (3.4 vs. 4.5 days, p-value < 0.001). There were more severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3a) in the LSG group (11.8% vs 2.7%, p-value = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective analysis, OAGB was superior to LSG in terms of weight loss in SSO patients. Procedure length and hospital stay were shorter after OAGB in comparison to LSG and there were fewer severe complications. OAGB can therefore be regarded a safe and effective treatment modality for SSO patients.