Outcomes of primary sleeve gastrectomy versus conversion sleeve gastrectomy in morbidly obese patients

Perioperative Morbidity and Mortality of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) in a Single-Surgeon Experience on 892 Patients Over 11 Years

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been the most frequently performed bariatric procedure since 2014, with continually growing popularity. This study aimed to present our 30-day morbidity and mortality following LSG over a period of 11 years.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study that was based on prospectively collected data from patients undergoing LSG by the same surgeon from July 2011 to the end of August 2022. The LSG-associated 30-day morbidity and mortality and the risk factors for 30-day morbidity were assessed.

RESULTS

This study included 892 patients who underwent LSG over the course of 11 years. Early postoperative adverse events were encountered in 16 patients (1.79%). Overall, twelve patients (1.35%) required blood transfusions, and two patients (0.22%) required ICU admission. The re-operation rate was 0.9% (n = 8) and the mortality rate was 0.22% (n = 2). The patient's BMI, hypertension, and revisional surgery were marginally significant/significant predictors of early postoperative morbidity. The mean EBWL% was 63.8 ± 15.55 at the 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the previously reported LSG's short-term safety in terms of a low rate of 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality. Preoperative BMI, hypertension, and revisional surgery are risk factors for 30-day morbidity and mortality.

One-stage versus two-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass as redo surgery of failed adjustable gastric banding

INTRODUCTION

The study focussed on whether a one-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass (OS-RYGB) or a two-stage RYGB (TS-RYGB) has a significant advantage in terms of perioperative risk in patients after failed adjustable gastric banding (AGB).

METHODS

Data collection included patients who underwent OS-RYGB or TS-RYGB after AGB between 2005 and 2019 and whose outcomes were compared with those after primary RYGB (P-RYGB). Outcome criteria were perioperative complications, comorbidities, 30-day mortality and operating time.

RESULTS

The study analysed data from patients who underwent OS-RYGB (N = 525), TS-RYGB (N = 382) and P-RYGB (N = 26,445). Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were significantly lower for P-RYGB (p < 0.001). Total intraoperative and specific postoperative complication rates were significantly lower in TS-RYGB than in OS-RYGB (p = 0.048 and p < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, the total general postoperative complication rate was lower in OS-RYGB than in TS-RYGB (p < 0.001). The mean operating time differed significantly among the three groups (P-RYGB 96.5min, OS-RYGB 141.2min and TS-RYGB 190.9min; p < 0.001). The mortality rate was not significantly different between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the significant difference between the two groups in revision surgery and the slight difference with the results of primary RYGB, this study concludes that removal of a failed AGB is safe and feasible with either the OS- or TS-RYGB procedure. However, we cannot directly recommend either procedure in our study. Proper patient selection and surgeon experience are critical to avoid potential adverse effects.

Analysis of the risk factors for perioperative morbidity after laparoscopic revisional bariatric procedures: results from the multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study

BACKGROUND

The growing number of primary bariatric operations has led to an increase in demand for revision surgeries. Higher numbers of revisional operations are also observed in Poland, yet their safety and efficacy remain controversial because of a lack of current recommendations and guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To review risk factors influencing perioperative morbidity.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the results of surgical treatment among 12 Polish bariatric centers. Inclusion criteria were laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgeries and patients ≥18 years of age. The study included 795 patients, of whom 621 were female; the mean age was 47 years (range: 40-55 years).

RESULTS

Perioperative morbidity occurred in 92 patients (11.6%) enrolled in the study, including 76 women (82.6%). The median age was 45 years (range: 39-54 years). Statistically significant risk factors in univariate logistic regression models for perioperative complications were the duration of obesity, revisional surgery after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or adjustable gastric band (AGB), difference in body mass index before revisional surgery and the lowest achieved after primary surgery, and postoperative morbidity of the primary surgery as the cause for revisional bariatric surgery. These factors were included in the multivariate regression model. Revisional surgery after AGB (odds ratio [OR] = 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-3.69; P = .004), revisional surgery performed after RYGB (OR = 6.52; 95% CI: 1.98-21.49; P = .002), and revisions due to complication of the primary surgery (OR = 1.89; 95% CI: 1.06-3.34; P = .030) remained independent risk factors for perioperative morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Revisional operations after RYGB or AGB and those performed because of postoperative morbidity after primary surgery as the main cause for revisional surgery were associated with a significantly increased risk of postoperative morbidity.

One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Gastric Bypass as Redo Surgery After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding-Observation Comparative Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

This study investigates the outcome of one-stage and two-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as a revision procedure after failed adjustable gastric banding (AGB).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data of patients who underwent a one-stage RYGB (OS-RYGB) or a two-stage RYGB (TS-RYGB) revision procedure after failing AGB between 2005 and 2019 were analyzed. Outcome criteria were perioperative complications, operating time, change in weight and BMI, and remission of comorbidities at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Data from 230 patients after OS-RYGB and 197 after TS-RYGB were analyzed. The total perioperative complication rates were not significantly different between the two groups (overall p > 5%). In the category of other complications, there was a significant difference between the two groups, with a lower rate in TS-RYGB than in OS-RYGB (p = 0.020). Wound infections occurred more frequently after TS-RYGB than after OS-RYGB (p = 0.015). Mean operating time differed significantly between the two groups (OS-RYGB (149.9 min) and TS-RYGB 191 min; p < 0.001). The change in hypertension was significantly higher in OS-RYGB (37.9 vs. 21.1%; p = 0.007). Other comorbidities showed no significant change within 1 year after surgery. Regarding the change in BMI, %TWL, and %EWL, there were no significant benefits for either group (p = 0.574, 0.762, and 0.378, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Removing a failed AGB using the OS- or TS-RYGB is safe and feasible. The decision between OS- and TS-RYGB is still individual and depends on the patient's general condition, the desired goal of the procedure, and the personal competence of the surgeon. Further studies are needed to clarify long-term outcome and effect of both procedures.

Outcomes in revisional bariatric surgery: a high-volume single institution experience

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate outcomes of adjustable gastric band (AGB) conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), SG conversion to RYGB and RYGB revision procedures.

METHODS

Patients undergoing secondary bariatric surgery between 2009 and 2017 were retrospectively identified from a prospective database. Primary outcomes were weight loss and improvement in comorbidities. For weight loss, percent of total body weight loss (%TWL) and percentage of excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) were included. Comorbidities included were hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), cardiovascular risk (CV) and hypertension.

RESULTS

266 Secondary bariatric procedures were analyzed. There were four Grade IIIb complications within 30 days. There was greater %EBMIL at 12 and 24 months in the AGB to RYGB group, and in %TWL at 24 months compared to AGB to SG group (p < 0.05). Only AGB to RYGB had significantly continued improvement in these two parameters at 24 months compared to at 6 months post-operatively-%EBMIL and %TWL tapered off in the other procedures. There was significantly lower CV risk in dyslipidemic patients at 24 months in the AGB to RYGB compared to the AGB to SG group. In the SG to RYGB patients, there was significant improvement in CV risk in dyslipidemic patients at 24 months compared to baseline. There was significant improvement in HbA1C in diabetics in AGB to RYGB patients at 6 and 12 months, in AGB to SG patients at 12 months, and in SG to RYGB patients at 12 and 24 months compared to baseline. In RYGB revision and SG to RYGB patients, there was a relative increase in the number of patients being normotensive at 24 months compared to baseline.

CONCLUSION

Secondary bariatric surgery is a complex and challenging procedure that may improve weight loss and cardiovascular risk for certain procedures but further studies will be necessary.