Band erosion after laparoscopic gastric banding: occurrence and results after conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Management of Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Band Erosion: A Case Report

Gastric banding was one of the first operations to gain popularity within the field of bariatric surgery. This case details one patient's presentation and subsequent management of gastric band erosion with the hope of guiding other physicians and supporting the decreased use of gastric banding. The patient, a 61-year-old Caucasian female, presented to the bariatric clinic complaining of a multiyear history of epigastric pain and acid reflux, which was refractory to treatment with proton pump inhibitors. She had a history of laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) placement in 2007. She was initially successful in achieving weight loss and maintained regular band adjustments but was lost to follow-up and regained a body mass index (BMI) of 41.59 kg/m2. Evaluation with upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy was recommended and performed. This revealed a LAGB in its entirety with tubing within the gastric fundus. Removal with dual endoscopy and abdominal laparoscopy was recommended and scheduled. During attempts to remove the band using an endoscopic snare, significant difficulty was encountered. Ultimately, an endoscopic rat-tooth grasper was used to lyse the band and tubing into four sections for complete removal. The subcutaneous port of the band was successfully removed laparoscopically, and the patient was discharged from the operating room. She reported limited pain in the postoperative suite but was lost to follow-up regarding long-term symptom relief. This report describes the presentation and management of one patient's experience with a known complication of LAGB-band erosion. This complication necessitated two additional procedures with anesthesia and placed the patient at increased risk for esophageal perforation, complications related to sedation, and the development of abdominal adhesions. Her case aims to support the decreasing prevalence of LAGBs within bariatric surgery and hopes to guide other physicians challenged with the management of similar cases.

The Impact of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation (MSA) on Esophagogastric Junction (EGJ) and Esophageal Body Physiology and Manometric Characteristics

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of MSA on lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and esophageal body using high resolution impedance manometry.

BACKGROUND

MSA is an effective treatment in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, but there is limited data on its impact on esophageal functional physiology.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MSA were approached 1-year after surgery for objective foregut testing consists of upper endoscopy, esophagram, high resolution impedance manometry, and esophageal pH-monitoring. Postoperative data were then compared to the preoperative measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were included in this study. At a mean follow up of 14.9(10.1) months, 72% had normalization of esophageal acid exposure. MSA resulted in an increase in mean LES resting pressure [29.3(12.9) vs 25(12.3), P < 0.001]. This was also true for LES overall length [2.9(0.6) vs 2.6(0.6), P = 0.02] and intra-abdominal length [1.2(0.7) vs 0.8(0.8), P < 0.001]. Outflow resistance at the EGJ increased after MSA as demonstrated by elevation in intrabolus pressure (19.6 vs 13.5 mmHg, P < 0.001) and integrated relaxation pressure (13.5 vs 7.2, P < 0.001). MSA was also associated with an increase in distal esophageal body contraction amplitude [103.8(45.4) vs 94.1(39.1), P = 0.015] and distal contractile integral [2647.1(2064.4) vs 2099.7(1656.1), P < 0.001]. The percent peristalsis and incomplete bolus clearance remained unchanged ( P = 0.47 and 0.08, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

MSA results in improvement in the LES manometric characteristics. Although the device results in an increased outflow resistance at the EGJ, the compensatory increase in the force of esophageal contraction will result in unaltered esophageal peristaltic progression and bolus clearance.

Eroded Gastric Band: Where to Next? An Analysis of the Largest Contemporary Series

PURPOSE

Erosion of a laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is a devastating problem. There is no clear evidence in literature to guide the choice of revisional procedure following an eroded LAGB. The purpose of this study is to analyse the largest series of erosions following LAGB published to-date with an aim to share our experience with this rare complication and how we managed this cohort of patients following explantation of their LAGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. Patient data is maintained prospectively in a surgical database. The study period was from January 1996 to January 2019. The outcomes of patients who underwent an erosion of LAGB were studied.

RESULTS

Gastric band erosion was encountered in 4.7% of patients. Sixty patients opted for a revisional procedure which included 37 repeat LAGBs, 6 laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies (LSG), 7 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (RYGB), 1 intragastric balloon, and 9 failed revisional procedures. Re-erosions were noted in 27% of patients who underwent a repeat gastric banding. Median %TWL at a 1-year follow-up was significantly higher in LSG and RYGB groups compared with that in LAGB (P < 0.008 and P < 0.000, respectively). There was no significant difference between the LSG and RYGB groups.

CONCLUSION

The risk of re-erosion is increased in patients who undergo repeat AGB following a previous episode of erosion. Repeat LAGB should not be offered after a previous erosion. LSG and RYGB should be considered as appropriate revisional procedures in a patient who experience weight regain following explantation of an eroded LAGB.

Revisional surgery after removal of eroded adjustable gastric bands

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study is to present surgical techniques and treatment outcomes for re-banding and sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional surgery after removing eroded adjustable gastric bands.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed to study laparoscopic re-banding or sleeve gastrectomy as revisional surgery for band erosion. Main outcome measures were success of therapeutic strategies, morbidity, body mass index, and percentage total excess weight loss before and after revision.

RESULTS

From March 2013 to June 2017, a total of 11 patients underwent the revisional surgery. Six patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy at median 15.7 months (13.2-73.3 months) after band removal, and 5 patients gastric re-banding at median 5.4 months (3.1-43.8 months). One of the six patients that underwent sleeve gastrectomy was diagnosed to have a minor leak. No other critical postoperative complication was observed in each group. Median BMI at revision in the sleeve gastrectomy group was 32.7 kg/m² (31.2-40.8 kg/m²). Median follow-up after revision was 33.8 months (15.5-63.7 months), and at last follow-up, median BMI was 26.4 kg/m² (23.6-34.6 kg/m²), and median %TWL was 17.6% (9.5-31.5%). In the rebanding group, median BMI at revision was 30.7 kg/m² (27.0-41.4 kg/m²). Median follow-up after revision was 25.5 months (13.5-45.4 months), and at last follow-up, median BMI was 23.5 kg/m² (22.0-30.1 kg/m²) and median %TWL was 23.9% (9.1-29.0%).

CONCLUSION

Given the surgical techniques adopted, both re-banding and sleeve gastrectomy were found to be safe and effective revisional surgery after removal of eroded gastric band.

Long-term results of the patients who were applied laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding

Objectives

The most effective treatment step in morbid obesity is surgical treatment. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the long-term follow-up results and success rates in laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

Material and Methods

The change in body mass index, percentage of excess weight loss, comorbidities, and resulting complications were investigated in 220 patients who were morbidly obese and applied laparoscopic adjustable gastric band between April 2006 and February 2012, throughout the 6-year follow-up period. Forty-six patients who did not show up for their routine follow-ups were excluded from the study.

Results

In the present study, band removal percentage was 35.63%. The percentage of excess weight loss in patients who were followed up without removal of the band was 46.03%. Complications were observed in 46.5% of the patients. The most frequently observed complication among the major complications was band intolerance, which is also the most common cause of band removal. Band removal was considered as a failure in laparoscopic adjustable gastric band operations, and patients were referred to other surgical methods.

Conclusion

When improved patient compliance and careful and close patient follow-up are provided in the early stages of laparoscopic adjustable gastric band application, it may be possible to reach percentage of excess weight loss results that would be the nearest to those achieved by gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy methods. However, high complication rates and necessity to perform other bariatric surgical procedures in the majority of the patients in the long-term follow-up suggest that the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band operation is not the first choice in bariatric surgery.

Complications of Bariatric Surgery: What You Can Expect to See in Your GI Practice

Obesity is one of the most significant health problems worldwide. Bariatric surgery has become one of the fastest growing operative procedures and has gained acceptance as the leading option for weight-loss. Despite improvement in the performance of bariatric surgical procedures, complications are not uncommon. There are a number of unique complications that arise in this patient population and require specific knowledge for proper management. Furthermore, conditions unrelated to the altered anatomy typically require a different management strategy. As such, a basic understanding of surgical anatomy, potential complications, and endoscopic tools and techniques for optimal management is essential for the practicing gastroenterologist. Gastroenterologists should be familiar with these procedures and complication management strategies. This review will cover these topics and focus on major complications that gastroenterologists will be most likely to see in their practice.

Review article including treatment algorithm: endoscopic treatment of luminal complications after bariatric surgery

The worldwide number of performed bariatric surgeries is increasing continuously, whereas laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy are conducted most frequently. Alongside with the usual post-operative and metabolic complications, luminal complications such as anastomotic bleeding, ulceration, leakage, fistula formation, enlargement and stenosis of the anastomosis may occur. Evolution of interventional endoscopy frequently allows endoscopic management of complications, avoiding surgical interventions in most cases. Here, we review the various luminal complications after bariatric surgery with a focus on their endoscopic management.

Redo Surgery after Failed Open VBG: Laparoscopic Minigastric Bypass versus Laparoscopic Roux en Y Gastric Bypass-Which Is Better?

Background. Long-term studies have reported that the rate of conversion surgeries after open VBG ranged from 49.7 to 56%. This study is aiming to compare between LMGB and LRYGB as conversion surgeries after failed open VBG with respect to indications and operative and postoperative outcomes. Methods. Sixty patients (48 females and 12 males) presenting with failed VBG, with an average BMI of 39.7 kg/m² ranging between 26.5 kg/m² and 53 kg/m², and a mean age of 38.7 ranging between 24 and 51 years were enrolled in this study. Operative and postoperative data was recorded up to one year after the operation. Results. MGB is a simple procedure that is associated with short operative time and low rate of complications. However, MGB may not be applicable in all cases with failed VBG and therefore RYGB may be needed in such cases. Conclusion. LMGB is a safe and feasible revisional bariatric surgery after failed VBG and can achieve early good weight loss results similar to that of LRYGP. However, the decision to convert to lap RYGB or MGB should be taken intraoperatively depending mainly on the actual intraoperative pouch length.

Endoscopy after bariatric surgery

Obesity is a global epidemic with significant morbidity and mortality. Weight loss results in reduction of health risks and improvement in quality of life, thus representing a goal of paramount importance. Bariatric surgery is the most efficacious choice compared to conservative alternatives including diet, exercise, drugs and behavioral modification to treat obese patients. Following bariatric operations, patients may present with upper gastrointestinal tract complaints that warrant endoscopic evaluation and the various bariatric surgery types are often linked to complications. A subset of these complications necessitates endoscopic interventions for accurate diagnosis and effective, minimal invasive treatment. This review aims to highlight the role of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients who have undergone bariatric surgery to evaluate and potentially treat surgery-related complications and upper gastrointestinal symptoms.

Acute Abdominal Pain in the Bariatric Surgery Patient

Obesity is present in epidemic proportions in the United States, and bariatric surgery has become more common. Thus, emergency physicians will undoubtedly encounter many patients who have undergone one of these procedures. Knowledge of the anatomic changes specific to these procedures aids the clinician in understanding potential complications and devising an organized differential diagnosis. This article reviews common bariatric surgery procedures, their complications, and the approach to acute abdominal pain in these patients.

[Gastric band erosion: Alternative management]

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a public health problem, for which the prevalence has increased worldwide at an alarming rate, affecting 1.7 billion people in the world.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the technique employed in incomplete penetration of gastric band where endoscopic management and/or primary closure is not feasible.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Laparoscopic removal of gastric band was performed in five patients with incomplete penetrance using Foley catheterization in the perforation site that could lead to the development of a gastro-cutaneous fistula.

CLINICAL CASES

The cases presented include a leak that required surgical lavage with satisfactory outcome, and one patient developed stenosis 3 years after surgical management, which was resolved endoscopically. In all cases, the penetration site closed spontaneously.

DISCUSSION

Gastric band erosion has been reported in 3.4% of cases. The reason for inserting a catheter is to create a controlled gastro-cutaneous fistula, allowing spontaneous closure.

CONCLUSIONS

Various techniques have been described: the totally endoscopic, hybrid techniques (endoscopic/laparoscopic) and completely laparoscopic. A technique is described here that is useful and successful in cases where the above-described treatments are not viable.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as revisional surgery for adjustable gastric band erosion

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been increasingly adopted as a revisional surgery for failed gastric banding. However, little information is available regarding the outcome of revisional LSG for band erosion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective database analysis was performed to study LSG as revisional surgery for band erosion. For staged revision, we waited a minimum of 3 months after band removal, and for single-stage revision, the band was removed by gastrotomy, and sleeve gastrectomy was performed at the same time. Main outcome measures were success rates of therapeutic strategies, morbidity, and mortality rates, length of stay, and body mass index (BMI) (percentage excess weight loss [%EWL]) before and after revision.

RESULTS

From March 2011 to February 2013, 9 female patients underwent revisional LSG. Average age was 34.7 years. Six patients underwent a staged procedure, and the other 3 underwent a single-stage revision. Among the 6 staged patients, eroded bands had been removed by laparoscopy in 4 and by endoscopy in 2 without complications. Their LSGs were performed at a median of 4.4 months after band removal. Another 2 patients underwent single-stage revision. In the last patient, band erosion was incidentally found during a revisional LSG for insufficient weight loss. No mortality occurred. There were one stenosis and two proximal leaks. Two patients with leak underwent total gastrectomy and fistulojejunostomy. After a mean follow-up of 19.1 months, all 9 patients exhibited weight loss. The mean (±standard deviation [SD]) pre- and post-LSG BMIs were 34.0±4.4 and 25.6±2.1 kg/m(2), respectively, and their mean (±SD) %EWL from prebanding was 86.8±10.1%. Revisional LSG resulted in a further median %EWL of 28.0% (range, 7.9%-68.9%) versus weight at time of band removal.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional LSG after band erosion was found to be feasible and effective. However, it is prone to severe complication. In selected cases of band erosion, LSG can be performed at the time of band removal in a single stage.

Single-stage versus 2-stage sleeve gastrectomy as a conversion after failed adjustable gastric banding: 30-day outcomes

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is being performed as a conversion after adjustable gastric banding (AGB), often in a single stage. However, some argue that it should be performed in 2 stages to improve safety. Few studies compare complications between 1-stage and 2-stage procedures. Our aim is to compare the 30-day complication rates among these two groups.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients converted from AGB to SG between 8/2008 and 10/2013 and compared patients undergoing 1-stage and 2-stage techniques. Primary outcome was overall 30-day adverse event rate (postoperative complication, readmission, or reoperation). Secondary outcomes included operating room (OR) time, length of stay (LOS), leak, infection, and bleeding rates, as well as mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients underwent SG after band removal; three were excluded due to short follow-up, leaving 60 1-stage and 20 2-stage. Mean time from band removal to SG for 2-stage was 438 days. Demographics, intraoperative technique (bougie size, staple reinforcement, oversewing staple line, and leak test), and mean follow-up were not statistically different. Mean OR time (132.1 min 1-stage vs. 127.8 min 2-stage, p = 0.702) and LOS (3.1 vs. 2.4 days, p = 0.676) were similar. Overall 30-day adverse event rate was 12 % for 1-stage versus 15 % for 2-stage procedures (p = 0.705). Differences in 30-day readmission (8 vs. 5 %) and reoperation (5 vs. 0 %) were not statistically significant (p = 0.999 and 0.569, respectively). Leak (3 vs. 0 %, p = 0.999), abscess (2 vs. 5 %, p = 0.440), and bleeding rates (2 vs. 0 %, p = 0.999) were not different. There were no deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

SG performed as a conversion after AGB is safe and feasible. Our findings indicate no statistical difference in 30-day outcomes when performed in 1 or 2 stages. Future studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to further investigate these differences.

Simultaneous Gastric and Duodenal Erosions due to Adjustable Gastric Banding for Morbid Obesity

Erosion is an uncommon but feared late complication of adjustable gastric banding for morbid obesity. A high index of clinical suspicion is required, since symptoms are usually vague and nonspecific. Diagnosis is confirmed on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and band removal is the mainstay of treatment, with band revision or conversion to other bariatric modalities at a later stage. Duodenal erosion is a much rarer complication, caused by the connection tubing of the band. We present our experience with a case of simultaneous gastric and duodenal erosions, managed by laparoscopic explantation of the band, primary suture repair of the duodenum, and omentopexy.

Systematic review on reoperative bariatric surgery: American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Revision Task Force. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10:952-972. [PMID: 24776071 DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2014.02.014]

BACKGROUND

Reoperative bariatric surgery has become a common practice in many bariatric surgery programs. There is currently little evidence-based guidance regarding specific indications and outcomes for reoperative bariatric surgery. A task force was convened to review the current evidence regarding reoperative bariatric surgery. The aim of the review was to identify procedure-specific indications and outcomes for reoperative procedures.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting indications for and outcomes after reoperative bariatric surgery. Specifically, operations to treat complications, failed weight loss, and weight regain were evaluated. Abstract and manuscript reviews were completed by the task force members to identify, grade, and categorize relevant studies.

RESULTS

A total of 819 articles were identified in the initial search. After review for inclusion criteria and data quality, 175 articles were included in the systematic review and analysis. The majority of published studies are single center retrospective reviews. The evidence supporting reoperative surgery for acute and chronic complications is described. The evidence regarding reoperative surgery for failed weight loss and weight regain generally demonstrates improved weight loss and co-morbidity reduction after reintervention. Procedure-specific outcomes are described. Complication rates are generally reported to be higher after reoperative surgery compared to primary surgery.

CONCLUSION

The indications and outcomes for reoperative bariatric surgery are procedure-specific but the current evidence does support additional treatment for persistent obesity, co-morbid disease, and complications.

Erosions after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: diagnosis and management

OBJECTIVE

To define the changing prevalence of erosion after Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding (LAGB), describing the range of clinical presentations, the approaches to treatment and the outcomes from these approaches over a 15-year study period.

BACKGROUND

A recent systematic review of the literature of erosion after LAGB identified 25 relevant studies and reported a total of 231 erosions in 15,775 patients giving an overall incidence of 1.46%. The review highlighted a broad variation of incidence from 0.2% to 33%. The review was unable to identify either common presentations or an optimal pattern of management.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a primary LAGB operation between September 1994 and January 2010 by 2 surgeons (P.O.B. and W.B.) were identified in a prospectively maintained database. Those patients who had an erosion of their LAGB were identified. Presentation, operative details, demographics, body mass index, weight history, and perioperative problems were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 2986 patients were identified. All bands placed were Lap-Bands (Allergan, CA). Hundred erosions were experienced by 85 patients (2.85%) at a median time of 33 months from initial surgery to the erosion (range: 11-170 months). The rate of erosion was highest when the band was placed by the perigastric approach at 6.77%. Since the adoption of the pars flaccida approach, the rate of erosion has dropped to 1.07%. The majority of patients who had experienced an erosion (71 patients; 83.5%) experienced only 1 erosion, 13 patients (15.3%) had 2 erosions, and 1 patient had 3 erosions. The most common presentation was loss of satiety. The band has been successfully replaced in 56 patients. It has been explanted in 27 patients and 2 patients were converted to other bariatric procedures. The weight loss in patients who had a LAGB reinserted after erosion was not significantly different to the background cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Erosion of LAGB is uncommon and its clinical course is benign. It is best treated with a staged surgical approach; initially, with removal and repair followed later by replacement. With this approach, weight loss is maintained and reerosion is uncommon.

Laparoscopic conversion of failed gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: short-term follow-up and technical considerations

BACKGROUND

The most common bariatric procedure in Australia is laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Although successful, there is a substantial long-term complication and failure rate. Band removal and conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) can be an effective treatment for complicated or failed bands. There is increasing evidence supporting good weight loss and resolution of band-related complications after conversion.

METHODS

A prospective database of all bariatric procedures is maintained. Patients having revision of LAGB to RYGB between December 2007 and April 2011 were included in this study. Indications for surgery, operative details, morbidity and mortality, weight loss data, and post-operative symptoms were recorded.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were included. Indications for surgery were inadequate weight loss (n = 42), adverse symptoms (reflux = 8, dysphagia = 2), and band complications (band erosion = 7, band sepsis = 1, band slip = 11, esophageal dilatation = 11). Seventy-eight percent of procedures were completed in a single stage and 96.3% laparoscopically. There was no 30-day mortality. Total morbidity was 46.3% (minor complications = 32.9%, major complications = 13.4%). Median BMI was 43 kg/m(2) pre-RYGB and 34 kg/m(2) after 12 months. All patients with adverse band-related symptoms had resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

LAGB has a considerable complication and failure rate. Conversion of these patients to RYGB results in further weight loss and resolution of adverse symptoms. This is a challenging procedure, but can usually be performed in a single stage with acceptable morbidity and mortality. These patients should be treated in high-volume, subspecialty bariatric units.

Laparoscopic gastric bypass for failure of adjustable gastric banding: a review of 85 cases

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is the first bariatric procedure in Europe and is becoming more and more popular in North America. However, the failure rate at 5 years can reach 50%. Although there is still no consensus on revisional surgery, the trend seems to be in favor of conversion to gastric bypass (GBP) with encouraging results. The aim of this study was to assess the results, the risks of conversion into GBP after failure of gastric banding. From January 2003 to July 2010, 85 patients had a revisional GBP after failure of LAGB, performed by two experienced surgeons. Post-operative morbidity, functional results, and weight loss were analyzed. The conversion rate was 2.3%. The mean operative time was 166 min. The mean length of stay was 5.2 days. The early morbidity rate was 7% and the mortality rate was nil. The mean body mass index (BMI) at the time of LAGB was 47.2 kg/m(2) with the lowest BMI reached at 35. The mean BMI at conversion into GBP was 42.9 and the final BMI after a mean follow-up of 22 months was 34.8. Of the patients, 57.7% had a final BMI inferior to 35 and 15.3% had a final BMI superior to 40 and these were super obese and older patients. Super-obesity and advanced age appear to be factors of failure of LAGB and revisional GBP. However, conversion into GBP currently remains the choice procedure in case of gastric banding failure with satisfactory results and acceptable morbidity.

Treatment of band erosion: feasibility and safety of endoscopic band removal

BACKGROUND

Band erosion is reported with a highly variable incidence (0.3-14%) after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding. Removal of the band is mandatory because the patient regains weight and may become symptomatic, but no consensus exists about the best method, surgical or endoscopic, for this purpose. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of endoscopic management of band erosion.

METHODS

In this study, 23 patients were treated for band erosion after gastric banding: 8 from the authors' series of 951 patients (incidence, 0.84%) and 15 referred to the authors' surgical department from other hospitals. The endoscopic method of band removal was used in 20 cases. Because of complications associated with erosion, three patients were submitted instead to laparoscopic removal.

RESULTS

Endoscopic removal of the band was successful for 16 of 20 patients. Four cases required conversion of the procedure to surgery: in one case due to complications with the endoscopic cutting wire and in the three remaining cases due to dense perigastric adhesions blocking the band. The follow-up evaluation of the patients who had the endoscopic removal was uneventful, with quick discharge at resumption of oral feeding. The patients who underwent laparoscopic removal had a longer hospital stay, and one patient had a leak from the anterior gastrotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a few complications, endoscopic removal seems to be the procedure of choice for the treatment of band erosion. It allows quick resumption of oral feeding and rapid discharge of patients and appears to be safer and more effective than laparoscopic removal. Conversion to surgery is unlikely but possible. Therefore, the authors always recommend that the procedure be performed in the operating room.

Laparoscopic gastric band migration: role of environmental factors in the experience of a single team in three operating rooms

Stomach erosion after gastric banding represents one of its least studied complications, despite the fact that the modalities of presentation and treatment have been clarified in recent years. Associations between this complication and specific surgical factors related to the patient have not been reported. We evaluated the incidence of this complication in various operating environments, to identify a possible association with a specific risk factor. A total of 250 patients underwent gastric banding between 2006 and 2008 and were followed for at least 1 year of follow-up. The procedure was performed in three Centers by the same surgical team. Center A was selected for the learning curve, in the initial phase of the study. All surgeries were performed with standardized techniques. An annual endoscopic evaluation was performed during first 12 months. The data from the three Centers were evaluated comparatively, to assess the incidence of migration and compare sterilization and perioperative preparation techniques. Between May 2006 and December 2008, 140 patients operated on at Center A, 70 at Center B, and 50 at Center C were included. Twelve cases of intragastric migration were observed (4.8% of the entire cohort): two cases at Center A (1.4%) and 10 cases at Center C (25%; A vs. C and A vs. B, p < 0.05); no cases of erosions were observed in Center B of 50 patients (0%; reviewer 1, comment 1). From a retrospective observation, no significant difference in sterilization techniques was observed, while there were differences in perioperative preparation, although these are not objectifiable parameters.

Bariatric Revisionary Surgery for Failed or Complicated Vertical Banded Gastroplasty (VBG): Comparison of VBG Reoperation (re-VBG) versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass-on-VBG (RYGB-on-VBG)

Background. Revision of failed bariatric procedures is a significant challenge for bariatric surgeons, because of the increasing number of recurring morbid obesity or complications, especially in patients with a previous Vertical Banded Gastroplasty (VBG). Methods. Since November 1998, 109 patients with failed or complicated VBG were followed in a retrospective study. 49 patients underwent re-VBG and, since 2004, 60 underwent Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass-on-Vertical Banded Gastroplasty (RYGB-on-VBG). Results. At 3 years follow-up, mean BMI decreased from 37.4 to 31.2 Kg/m(2) in the first group, and from 35.0 to 28.4 Kg/m(2) in the second. Early complications were 7 (14.3%) in the first group and 4 (6.5%) in the second; late complications were 33 (59.1%) and 11 (18.3%), respectively. Conclusion. Although both operations seem to be effective as bariatric revision procedures in terms of BMI, the mid-term outcomes of RYGB-on-VBG demonstrate the lowest rate of complications and better quality of life.

Adjustable gastric banding as revisional bariatric procedure after failed gastric bypass--intermediate results

BACKGROUND

Although gastric bypass is the most common bariatric procedure in the United States, it is has been associated with a failure rate of 15% (range 5-40%). The addition of an adjustable gastric band to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass has been reported to be a useful revision strategy in a small series of patients with inadequate weight loss after proximal gastric bypass.

METHODS

We report on 22 patients who presented with inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain after proximal gastric bypass. All patients underwent revision with the placement of an adjustable silicone gastric band around the proximal gastric pouch. The bands were adjusted at 6 weeks postoperatively and beyond, as needed. Complications and weight loss at the most recent follow-up visit were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean age and body mass index at revision was 41.27 years (range 25-58) and 44.8 +/- 6.34 kg/m(2), respectively. Patients had experienced a loss of 19%, 27%, 47.3%, 42.3%, 43%, and 47% of their excess weight at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months after the revisional procedure, respectively. Three major complications occurred requiring reoperation. No band erosions have been documented.

CONCLUSION

The results from this larger series of patients have also indicated that the addition of the adjustable silicone gastric band causes significant weight loss in patients with poor weight loss outcomes after gastric bypass. That no anastomosis or change in absorption is required makes this an attractive revisional strategy. As with all revisional procedures, the complication rates appear to be increased compared with a similar primary operation.

Experiences of two centers of bariatric surgery in the treatment of intragastrale band migration after gastric banding-the importance of the German multicenter observational study for quality assurance in obesity surgery 2005 and 2006

BACKGROUND

Adjustable silicone gastric banding (ASGB) is an effective treatment in morbid obesity. Band migration is a long-term complication. Causes, clinical symptoms, timing and incidence are investigated in single centres only. In Germany, since January 1st, 2005, practice in bariatric surgery has been investigated in German prospective multicenter trial for quality assurance in obesity surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients underwent ASGB in two centres of bariatric surgery in Germany were prospectively registered using a computer-based data form. Patients with band migration were retrospectively evaluated, in particular, causes and characteristics of its management. The results were correlated with data obtained from the German prospective multicentre trial.

RESULTS

In total, 493 patients were enrolled in the study from February 1995 to February 2007. The follow-up rate was 79.9% (mean follow-up time period, 78.7 months; range, 2-148 months). Fifteen patients (3.0%) developed migration. In 14 cases, migration occurred within the range of 30-86 months after implantation. In one case, migration occurred 10 months after repositioning of the band. In the German multicentre trial, 629 patients underwent surgery during 2005 and 827 patients in 2006. In both periods, 74.4% of the patients were female and 25.6% male. The most frequently performed operation was ASGB (46.8%) followed by Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (38.5%).

CONCLUSION

Band migration requires band removal. Different symptoms and complications influence the kind of band removal. Multicentre data were evident in the case of high long-term complication rate after ASGB. Data of the German multicentre trial show the trend from restrictive bariatric procedures to malabsorptive approach.

Robotic implantation of gastric electrical stimulation electrodes for gastroparesis

BACKGROUND

Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is a low-morbidity treatment option that may be effective for refractory symptoms in patients with gastroparesis of diabetic or idiopathic etiology. During surgery to initiate GES, two electrodes are tunneled in the gastric antrum in a precise location. If these electrodes pass through the mucosa and into the gastric lumen (determined by endoscopy) they must be repositioned, often multiple times. During this procedure, extensive suturing to anchor the electrodes is necessary once properly placed. Robotic surgical systems may provide surgeons with several technical and ergonomic advantages during this procedure when compared with a standard laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

Over a 26-month period, 22 GES systems were implanted. The initial procedures were performed laparoscopically. After the first 15 laparoscopic cases, a technique for robotically implanting leads was developed and employed for the remainder of the series. Demographics, operative time, and endoscopically confirmed electrode mucosal perforations were quantified and compared based on operative approach.

RESULTS

Patients were similar demographically. Total operative time did not differ based on technique (152 +/- 40 min laparoscopic versus 158 +/- 38 min robotic placement; p = 0.6). Mucosal perforations on first attempt at electrode placement occurred more frequently with the laparoscopic than with the robotic technique (15/30 laparoscopic versus 1/14 robotic; p = 0.006). There were no procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach to GES electrode implantation is feasible and safe. Compared with standard laparoscopic techniques, the accurate insertion and anchoring of these leads can be accomplished more efficiently and comfortably using robotic techniques. Whether robotic GES electrode placement will result in significant clinical advantages for patients will require long-term follow-up.

Conversion of failed laparoscopic gastric banding to gastric bypass as safe and effective as primary gastric bypass in morbidly obese patients

BACKGROUND

To determine whether the medium-term outcome of secondary gastric bypass (SGB) after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is comparable to the outcome of primary gastric bypass (PGB) in morbidly obese patients in terms of complications and weight loss. Controversy exists among bariatric surgeons regarding the choice of primary operation for morbid obesity. Some prefer to start with LAGB as a low-risk operation for all patients and perform revisional surgery in the case of failure. Others prefer to tailor the primary operation to the individual patient.

METHODS

A total of 55 patients who had undergone SGB after failed LAGB from 2002 to 2006 were compared with 81 patients who had undergone PGB for morbid obesity during the same period in our hospital by a single surgeon.

RESULTS

The mean operative time in the PGB group was shorter (73 +/- 22 min, range 50-100) compared with the SGB group (99 +/- 32 min, range 55-180; P <.001). The median length of admission did not differ significantly between the PGB and SGB groups (4 +/- 6.6 d, range 3-55, versus 4 +/- 2.9 d, range 3-16, respectively; P = .13). No significant differences were found in the occurrence of complications between the PGB and SGB groups (29.6% versus 30.9%, respectively, P = .87). No patient died. At 2 and 3 years postoperatively, no significant difference was found in percentage of patients treated with good or excellent outcomes using the criteria of MacLean (2 y, PGB 60.0% versus SGB 58.8%, P = .94; 3 y, PGB 75.0% versus SGB 72.7%, P = .91).

CONCLUSION

In this series, gastric bypass as a secondary procedure after failed LAGB was as safe and effective as PGB. Conversion to gastric bypass appears to be the treatment of choice after failed LAGB.

Reoperations after gastric banding: replacement or alternative procedures?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastric banding (LAGB) is the most popular surgical procedure for morbid obesity in Europe. Long-term complications like slippage of the band or pouch dilatation are well known and lead to reoperations in a substantial number of patients. In this study, results and follow-ups of patients with reoperations after gastric banding were analyzed.

METHODS

Between May 1997 and June 2006, 172 patients were treated with LAGB for morbid obesity. 41 of these patients underwent one or more band-related reoperations (female symbol = 32, male symbol = 9). Causes for and type of reoperation were analyzed. Weight loss and comorbidities were compared for different types of reoperations.

RESULTS

There were no deaths following the reoperations. Band replacement (n = 18), band repositioning (n = 7), conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG, n = 2) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP, n = 2) or band removal without any further substitution (n = 12) were performed as first reoperation. Seven patients had a second reoperation: RYGBP (n = 3), SG (n = 1), or band removal (n = 3). Median follow-up since reoperation was 56 months (range 7-113). Excess weight loss (EBWL%) of patients was 59.4% after RYGBP (n = 5), 45.1% after re-banding (n = 18), and 33.4% after SG (n = 2). Comorbidities were further reduced or even resolved after reoperation. Patients whose band was removed without subsequent bariatric procedures lost significantly less weight (n = 13, EBWL% 23.4) than patients with band replacement (n = 18, EBWL% 46.4, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic reoperation after LAGB is safe and feasible. Reoperation leads to further decrease of BMI and obesity-related comorbidities. Band replacement is a good option for patients with good weight loss after initial LAGB. Alternative procedures, preferably RYGBP, are required for cases of band failure. Overall, RYGBP appears to be the most effective option to induce further weight loss.

Inadequate weight loss vs secondary weight regain: laparoscopic conversion from gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Beside complications like band migration, pouch-enlargement, esophageal dilation, or port-site infections, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has shown poor long-term outcome in a growing number of patients, due to primary inadequate weight loss or secondary weight regain. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) in these two indications.

METHODS

A total of 25 patients, who underwent laparoscopic conversion to RYGBP due to inadequate weight loss (n = 10) or uncontrollable weight regain (n = 15) following LAGB, were included to this prospective study analyzing weight loss and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

All procedures were completed laparoscopically within a mean duration of 219 +/- 52 (135-375) min. Mean body weight was reduced from 131 +/- 22 kg (range 95-194) at time of the RYGBP to 113 +/- 25, 107 +/- 22, and 100 +/- 21 kg at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, which results in excess weight losses (EWL) of 28.3 +/- 9.9%, 40.5 +/- 12.3%, and 50.8 +/- 15.2%. No statistically significant differences were found comparing weight loss within these two groups.

CONCLUSION

RYGBP was able to achieve EWLs of 37.6 +/- 16.1%, 48.5 +/- 15.1%, and 56.9 +/- 15.0% at 3, 6, and 12 months following conversion, respectively, based on the body weight at LAGB.

Lap-band causing left gastric artery erosion presenting with torrential hemorrhage

A 61-year-old lady presented 2 years after lap-band surgery with hemetemesis. She was stable on admission and band erosion was diagnosed on gastroscopy. Laparotomy was performed to remove the lap band. Upon division of the lap band, torrential hemorrhage from the eroded left gastric artery was encountered. An anterior gastrostomy was done to expose the artery. Intraoperative gastroscopy was also performed to define the cardioesophageal junction. The artery was ligated and the perforation and gastrostomy were repaired. The patient was discharged after 9 days in hospital. This case highlighted the potential injury to the left gastric artery in patients with band erosion presenting with hemetemesis. Torrential bleeding may be encountered upon division of the lap band, and this should be anticipated during laparotomy.

Mini-Gastric Bypass for Revision of Failed Primary Restrictive Procedures: A Valuable Option

BACKGROUND

Despite the initial success of primary gastric restrictive operations, many patients require revision for weight regain, mechanical complications or intolerance to restriction. The mini-gastric bypass (MGB) for revision of failed primary restrictive procedures was evaluated.

METHODS

33 patients undergoing revisional surgery to a MGB for a failed silastic ring vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) or a gastric banding (GB) from June 2005 to September 2006, were reviewed at an academic institution. The patients had had a minilaparotomy. Revision of the VBGs was further compared with revision of the GBs.

RESULTS

The MGB was completed in all except 2 patients who required Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) because of gastric tube damage. Mean age was 41 years (range 20-64), preoperative BMI was 39.5 kg/m2 (range 28-58), and 20 (65%) were women. The revision was performed after an average of 36.3 months (range 12-84), and was more time-consuming in patients with prior VBG than GB (184 vs 155 min, P=0.007). Postoperative complications occurred in 2 (6.4%) with prior VBG, and length of hospital stay was 4.65 days (range 3-17). Mean BMI at 6 months was 30.6 (range 24.8-50.0, P<0.001) compared with the preoperative BMI. Reflux disease was cured, and all patients noted major improvement in the eating dimension.

CONCLUSION

Open MGB through a previous mini-incision is a safe and effective operation for revision of failed gastric restrictive operations. The revision procedure was technically more difficult in patients with prior VBG and hazardous in patients with prior redo VBG.

Presentation and management of common post-weight loss surgery problems in the emergency department

Morbid obesity is an epidemic in this country. An increasing number of patients are undergoing weight loss surgery in an effort to combat the negative physical and psychological impact of morbid obesity. Fueling the increasing interest in surgical treatment of morbid obesity has been the development of new laparoscopic techniques. There are several surgical approaches to morbid obesity, and each has its own unique set of risks and potential complications. As more patients have weight loss surgery, clinicians working in the emergency department will frequently encounter complications of these procedures. To ensure timely diagnosis and optimal care, clinicians should be familiar with the standard weight loss approaches and the potential complications of these interventions.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band

Only a fraction of morbidly obese patients have come forward for bariatric surgery. This article confirms that the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is a safe, effective, primary weight-loss operation for morbidly obese patients. The LAGB offers a simple, genuinely minimally invasive approach, with the potential to be attractive to many more patients. The key questions are whether it is effective in the longterm and whether it is safe. The midterm data confirm that, so far, LAGB is living up to its early promise as an effective tool. LAGB surgery is safe, and the change to the pars-flaccida approach will lead to even higher patient satisfaction and lower incidence of band removal.