A decade of bariatric surgery. What have we learned? Outcome in 520 patients from a single institution

BACKGROUND

Today a variety of bariatric surgical procedures is available and, currently, it is difficult to identify the most effective option based on patient characteristics and comorbidities. Aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the efficacy of four different techniques; Intragastric Balloon (IB), Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding (LAGB), Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) and Laparoscopic Mini Gastric Bypass (LMGB), performed in our unit along ten years.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Starting from January 2005, 520 patients, 206 men (39.6%) and 314 women (60.4%) were treated at our institution. Among patients candidate to bariatric surgery 145 underwent IB, 120 underwent LAGB, 175 underwent LSG and 80 underwent LMGB. Follow up rate was 93.1% for IB at 6 months; 74.1% and 48% for LAGB at 36 and 60 months respectively; 72.8% and 58.1% for LSG at 36 and 60 months respectively; and 84.2% for LMGB at 36 months.

RESULTS

The period 2005-2014 has been considered. Mortality was 1/520 patients (0.19%). The excess weight loss rate (EWL%) has been 32.8 for IB at six months, 53.7 for LAGB and 68.1 for LSG, at 60 months respectively and 79.5 for LMGB at 36 months. Early major postoperative complications requiring surgery were 0.6% for IB and 1.1% for LSG whereas late major postoperative complications were 1.2% for IB, 4.1% for LAGB and 0.5% for LSG. Diabetes resolution rate was 0 for LAGB, 76.9% for LSG and 80% for LMGB at 36 months.

CONCLUSIONS

If more invasive procedures as LSG or LMGB may entail higher operative and peroperative risks, conversely, in skilled hands their efficacy remains undisputed, especially in the long term, presenting a very low rate of major complications. In general, the efficacy of a bariatric surgery unit seems improved by the capability to offer both different primary procedures and re-do surgery.

A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (LMGB) is a relatively new bariatric procedure; published studies are accumulating in various settings. The objective of this study was to summarize the available evidence about the efficacy and safety of LMGB.

METHODS

A systematic search in the literature was performed , and PubMed and reference lists were scrutinized (end-of-search date: July 15, 2013). For the assessment of the eligible articles, the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used.

RESULTS

Ten eligible studies were included in this study, reporting data on 4,899 patients. According to all included studies, LMGB induced substantial weight and body mass index reduction, as well as substantial excess weight loss. Moreover, resolution or improvement in all major associated medical illnesses and improvement in overall Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index score were recorded. Major bleeding and anastomotic ulcer were the most commonly reported complications. Readmission rate ranged from 0%- 11%, whereas the rate of revision operations ranged from .3%- 6%. The latter were conducted due to a variety of medical reasons such as inadequate or excessive weight loss, malnutrition, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Finally, the mortality rate ranged between 0% and .5% among primary LMGB procedures.

CONCLUSION

LMGB represents an effective bariatric procedure; its safety and minimal postoperative morbidity seem remarkable. Randomized comparative studies seem mandatory for the further evaluation of LMGB.