The prevalence of, and risk factors for, Barrett's oesophagus after sleeve gastrectomy

Revisional one-anastomosis gastric bypass for failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

The study aimed to evaluate the mid-term weight loss outcomes and complications of revisional one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) following failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). A total of 586 patients underwent LSG from January 2010 to February 2018. Revisional OAGB (rOAGB) was performed in 22 (3.8%) patients. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 20 patients with at least 12 months of follow-up after the revisional OAGB was carried out. The indications for revisional surgery were as follows: insufficient weight loss-4 (20%), weight regain-13 (65%), weight regain and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-2 (10%), and dysphagia with gastroesophageal reflux-1 (5%). The mean interval between the LSG and rOAGB was 35.3 ± 15.4 months (range 4-64). The mean follow-up time after rOAGB was 45.5 ± 17.1 months (range 12-54). At the end of the follow-up after rOAGB, %TWL was 26.4 ± 8.9%, and %EWL was 58.5 ± 21.6%, based on pre-LSG body weight. In all three patients with intractable GERD, the clinical symptoms of reflux retreated after revisional OAGB. The overall complication rate was 20%. In conclusion, the main indications for revision after LSG are weight regain, insufficient weight loss, and intractable GERD. Revisional OAGB emerges as a viable surgical alternative for unsuccessful LSG, presenting notable weight loss outcomes; however, it may be linked to an increased incidence of complications.

The outcomes of Re-Redo bariatric surgery-results from multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS)

The increasing prevalence of bariatric surgery has resulted in a rise in the number of redo procedures as well. While redo bariatric surgery has demonstrated its effectiveness, there is still a subset of patients who may not derive any benefits from it. This poses a significant challenge for bariatric surgeons, especially when there is a lack of clear guidelines. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent Re-Redo bariatric surgery. We conducted a retrospective cohort study on a group of 799 patients who underwent redo bariatric surgery between 2010 and 2020. Among these patients, 20 individuals underwent a second elective redo bariatric surgery (Re-Redo) because of weight regain (15 patients) or insufficient weight loss, i.e. < 50% EWL (5 patients). Mean BMI before Re-Redo surgery was 38.8 ± 4.9 kg/m2. Mean age was 44.4 ± 11.5 years old. The mean %TWL before and after Re-Redo was 17.4 ± 12.4% and %EBMIL was 51.6 ± 35.9%. 13/20 patients (65%) achieved > 50% EWL. The mean final %TWL was 34.2 ± 11.1% and final %EBMIL was 72.1 ± 20.8%. The mean BMI after treatment was 31.9 ± 5.3 kg/m2. Complications occurred in 3 of 20 patients (15%), with no reported mortality or need for another surgical intervention. The mean follow-up after Re-Redo was 35.3 months. Although Re-Redo bariatric surgery is an effective treatment for obesity, it carries a significant risk of complications.

The analysis of factors increasing the odds for type 2 diabetes mellitus remission following re-do bariatric surgery after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy- cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Metabolic/bariatric surgery is the only proven treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) with curative intent. However, in a number of patients, the surgery is not effective or they may experience a relapse. Those patients can be offered re-do bariatric surgery (RBS).

PURPOSE

The study aimed to determine factors increasing the odds for T2D remission one year after RBS following primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2010 and January 2020, which included 12 bariatric centers in Poland. The study population was divided into groups: Group 1- patients with T2D remission after RBS (n = 28) and Group 2- patients without T2D remission after RBS (n = 49). T2D remission was defined as HBA1c < 6.0% without glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy and glycemia within normal range at time of follow-up that was completed 12 months after RBS.

RESULTS

Fifty seven females and 20 males were included in the study. Patients who achieved BMI < 33 kg/m2 after RBS and those with %EBMIL > 60.7% had an increased chance of T2D remission (OR = 3.39, 95%CI = 1.28-8.95, p = 0.014 and OR = 12.48, 95%CI 2.67-58.42, p = 0.001, respectively). Time interval between primary LSG and RBS was significantly shorter in Group 1 than in Group 2 [1 (1-4) vs. 3 (2-4) years, p = 0.023].

CONCLUSIONS

Shorter time interval between LSG and RBS may ease remission of T2D in case of lack of remission after primary procedure. Significant excess weight loss seems to be the most crucial factor for T2D remission.

Risk factors and 26-years worldwide prevalence of endoscopic erosive esophagitis from 1997 to 2022: a meta-analysis

Erosive esophagitis (EE) is the part of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) spectrum and may progress to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Due to its progressivity and unclear prevalence, we aim to identify the factors contributing in EE to decide the need for further examination. We performed a PRISMA 2020-based systematic search through PubMed and other resources up to June 2, 2022. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The odds ratio (OR) of each factor and worldwide prevalence of EE were measured. There are 114 observational studies included with a total of 759,100 participants. Out of 29 factors, the significant risk factors are age ≥ 60 y.o. (OR 2.03 [1.81-2.28]), White/Caucasian (OR 1.67 [1.40-1.99]), unmarried (OR 1.08 [1.03-1.14]), having GERD ≥ 5 years (OR 1.27 [1.14-1.42]), general obesity (OR 1.78 [1.61-1.98]), central obesity (OR 1.29 [1.18-1.42]), diabetes mellitus (DM) (OR 1.24 [1.17-1.32]), hypertension (OR 1.16 [1.09-1.23]), dyslipidemia (OR 1.15 [1.06-1.24]), hypertriglyceridemia (OR 1.42 [1.29-1.57]), hiatal hernia (HH) (OR 4.07 [3.21-5.17]), and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (OR 1.26 [1.18-1.34]). However, H. pylori infection (OR 0.56 [0.48-0.66]) and atrophic gastritis (OR 0.51 [0.31-0.86]) are protective towards EE. This study demonstrates that age, ethnicity, unmarried, long-term GERD, metabolic diseases, HH, and NAFLD act as risk factors for EE, whereas H. pylori infection and atrophic gastritis act as protective factors. These findings may enable a better understanding of EE and increase greater awareness to address its growing burden.

GERD as a Complication of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for the Treatment of Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of obesity is increasing in developed societies, and surgical treatment is one treatment option. The most common surgical treatment for obesity is laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a complication of both obesity and the surgical treatment of obesity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, the PubMed database was searched using the keywords "GERD" and "bariatric surgery", and 987 papers published between 1 July 2017 and 30 June 2022 were retrieved.

RESULTS

Nine papers met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The articles were analyzed for the de novo occurrence of GERD after the treatment of its symptoms, the occurrence of erosive esophagitis, and Barrett's esophagus. In addition, interesting conclusions are presented from the papers that did not meet the inclusion criteria but shed light on the pathophysiology of GERD in obese patients undergoing LSG.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the authors draw attention to the need for endoscopic surveillance in patients undergoing LSG, even in the absence of clinical signs of GERD.

Banded versus non-banded sleeve gastrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic banded sleeve gastrectomy (LBSG) has been compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in terms of anthropometric results and postoperative complications, which are controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of LBSG and LSG.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis according to preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis 2020 and assessing the methodological quality of systematic review 2 guidelines. We included studies that systematically searched electronic databases and compared LBSG with LSG conducted until August 10, 2021.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 8 comparative studies. Seven hundred forty-three patients were included: 352 in the LBSG group and 391 in the LSG group. LBSG group allowed greater anthropometric parameters (body mass index [BMI] after 1 year (mean difference [MD] = -3.18; 95% CI [-5.45, -0.92], P = .006), %EWL after 1 year (MD = 8.02; 95% CI [1.22, 14.81], P = .02), and %EWL after 3 years (MD = 10.60; 95% CI [5.60, 15.69], P < .001) and similar results with LSG group in terms of operative time (MD = 1.23; 95% CI [-4.71, 7.17], P = .69), food intolerance (OR = 1.72; 95% CI [0.84, 3.49], P = .14), postoperative vomiting (OR = 2.10; 95% CI [0.69, 6.35], P = .19), and De novo GERD (OR = 0.65; 95% CI [0.34, 1.26], P = .2). Nevertheless, major postoperative complications did not differ between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LBSG and LSG concluded that banding sleeve gastrectomy (SG) may ensure a lower BMI and %EWL after 1 year of follow-up, and a significant reduction in %EWL after 3 years of follow-up. There is no evidence to support LBSG in vomiting, de novo GERD, food intolerance, or operative time.

Insights into the Paradox of the Weak Association Between Sleeve Gastrectomy and Barrett's Esophagus

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is deemed a refluxogenic operation but with a low incidence of postoperative Barrett´s esophagus (BE). We aimed to shed some light on the potential paradox of the weak association between SG, BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). The high incidence of GERD after SG is not followed by an increased rate of BE and EAC, as these rates are similar to the general population. We hypothesized that this paradox may occur due to a difference in the gastro-esophageal reflux composition secondary to a lower content of bile, to a decrease in inflammation due to weight loss and hormonal changes, and to acquisition of healthier habits such as exercise, smoking cessation, and better eating behavior.

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.

Post Sleeve Reflux: indicators and impact on outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Post-operative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remains a significant morbidity following sleeve gastrectomy (SG). We aim to evaluate the incidence and impact within a single center experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed identifying laparoscopic or robotic SG patients. Primary outcomes included weight loss, rates of post-operative GERD (de-novo or aggravated), and re-intervention. Subgroup analysis was performed between patients with (Group 1) and without (Group 2) post-operative GERD. De-novo GERD and aggravated was defined as persistent GERD complaints or new/increased PPI usage in GERD naive or prior GERD patients, respectively.

RESULTS

392 patients were identified between 2014 and 2019. Average demographics: age 42.3 (18-84) years, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) 1.12 (0-10), and body mass index (BMI) 47.7 (28-100). 98% were performed laparoscopically. Average excess weight loss (EWL) was 51.0% and 46.4% at 1 and 2 years post-operatively. Average follow up was 516 (6-2694) days. 69 (17%) patients developed post operative de-novo or aggravated GERD. Group 1 had significantly higher EWL at 9 months (57% vs 47%, p 0.003). 13 (3%) patients required operative re-intervention for GERD and other morbidities: 4 RYGB conversions, 4 diagnostic laparoscopies, 3 HHR, 1 MSA placement. Group 1 had higher rates of post-operative intervention (14% vs 1%, p 0.0001). Subanalysis demonstrated that Group 1 had elevated preoperative DeMeester scores on pH testing (34.8 vs 18.9, p 0.03). De-novo GERD had an elevated post-operative total acid exposure when compared to aggravated GERD (12.7% vs 7.0% p 0.03). No significant differences were found between preoperative endoscopy findings, pre and postoperative total acid exposure, post-operative DeMeester scores, and high-resolution manometry values regarding de-novo/aggravated GERD development.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative DeMeester scores may serve as risk indicators regarding post-operative GERD. Outcomes such as reintervention remain elevated in post-operative GERD patients.