Long-term follow-up in patients undergoing open gastric bypass as a revisional operation for previous failed restrictive procedures

BackgroundWe have previously described our early experience with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as a revisional procedure. The favorable results have stimulated us to continue using RYGB as our standard operating procedure after failed bariatric surgery. Our objective was to evaluate the perioperative risks, weight result, and abdominal symptoms 5 years after revisional RYGB surgery at a university hospital in Sweden.MethodsWe studied 121 patients undergoing revisional open RYGB (age 42.0 yr, body mass index 37.7 kg/m², 101 women) 5 years after RYGB surgery. The patients underwent reoperation because of either intolerable side effects or inferior weight loss. The initial procedures were horizontal gastroplasty (n = 2), vertical banded gastroplasty (n = 34), gastric banding (n = 21), and silicone adjustable gastric banding (n = 64). The mean interval between the first surgery and revision was 5 years. The 5-year follow-up data were obtained annually using a questionnaire survey.ResultsThe average operating time was 162 minutes (range 75–355). In these 121 cases, 10 (8%) reoperations were performed in the first 30-day period (4 for leakage). No perioperative mortality occurred, and the 5-year follow-up rate was 91%. The mean body mass index was 30.7 kg/m². Seven patients (5.7%) had undergone subsequent surgery because of complications. At follow-up, 93% reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the revisional procedure. Disturbing abdominal symptoms after RYGB were rare.ConclusionThe perioperative risks of revisional RYGB are greater than those for primary RYGB. However, because the long-term weight results and patient satisfaction are very good, we believe that the 8% reoperative rate is acceptable. We consider RYGB to be a suitable procedure for patients in whom previous bariatric procedures have failed.     

Use of Adjustable Silicone Gastric Banding for Revision of Failed Gastric Bariatric Operations

Background: Revision of gastric bariatric operations is sometimes technically difficult and may fail to achieve prolonged weight reduction. The use of the adjustable silicone gastric banding (ASGB) offers a new approach for these revisions. Methods: ASGB was performed as a revisional procedure on 37 patients whose initial bariatric operations were as follows: silastic ring vertical gastroplasty (21), gastric bypass (12), horizontal gastroplasty (3) and vertical banded gastroplasty (1). Results: The length of the procedure varied from 55 to 145 minutes (mean 83 minutes). Intraoperative complications included two fundic tears which were sutured without any postoperative sequelae. Five patients needed reoperation during the first postoperative year due to gastric volvulus (1), tubing tear (1) and development of postoperative ventral hernia (3). BMI fell from 44.8 ± SD 8.07 to 33.4 ± 6.9 kg/m² for patients operated with BMI higher than 35 kg/m² and from 29.2 ± 3.32 to 25.4 ± 2.8 kg/m² for patients operated with BMI lower than 35 kg/m². Conclusions: ASBG can be performed with revisions with an acceptable complication rate and post-operative weight reduction.     

Two-step conversion surgery after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding. Comparison between laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic gastric sleeve

BackgroundDespite its worldwide popularity, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) requires revisional surgery for failures or complications, in 20–60% of cases. The purpose of this study was to compare in terms of efficacy and safety, the conversion of failed LAGB to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. (LSG).MethodsThe bariatric database of our institution was reviewed to identify patients who had undergone conversion of failed LAGB to LRYGB or to LSG, from November 2007 to June 2012.ResultsA total of 108 patients were included. Of these, 74 (68.5%) underwent conversion to LRYGB and 34 to LSG. All of the procedures were performed in 2-stage and laparoscopically. The mean follow-up for the LRYGB group was 29.1±17.9 months while for the LSG patients was 24.2±14.3 months. The mean body mass index (BMI) prior LRYGB and LSG was 45.6±7.8 and 47.5±5.6 (P = .09), respectively. Postoperative complications occurred in 16.2% of the LRYGB patients and in 2.9% of the LSG group (P = .04). Mean percentage of excess weight loss was 59.9%±16.2% and 70.2%±16.7% in LRYGB, and it was 52.2%±11.4% and 59.9%±14.4% in LSG at 12 months (P = .007) and 24 months (P = .01) after conversion.ConclusionIn this series, LRYGB and LSG are both effective and adequate revisional procedure after failure of LAGB. While LRYGB seems to ensure greater weight loss at 24 months follow-up, LSG is associated with a lower postoperative morbidity.     

Prospective randomised comparison of adjustable gastric banding and vertical banded gastroplasty for morbid obesity.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical results of adjustable gastric banding and vertical banded gastroplasty for morbid obesity. DESIGN: Prospective randomised trial. SETTING: University hospital, Sweden. PATIENTS: 59 morbidly obese patients, listed for obesity surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Adjustable gastric banding (n = 29) or vertical banded gastroplasty (n = 30). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Weight loss, complications, need for revisional surgery, reflux symptoms and the patient's own evaluation. RESULTS: Five years after surgery the mean (SEM) weight reduction for adjustable gastric banding was 43 (3.0) kg and for vertical banded gastroplasty 35 (4.8) kg. One patient in each group died of unrelated causes during follow-up and 3 and 2 patients, respectively, were lost to follow-up. One patient in the vertical banded group required reoperation for an anastomotic leak on the third postoperative day. A total of 3 patients in the adjustable group required reoperation and 11 in the vertical banded group. CONCLUSIONS: Adjustable gastric banding carries a smaller risk of reoperation than vertical banded gastroplasty and the weight reduction is in the same order of magnitude.     

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after previous unsuccessful gastric restrictive surgery

In the treatment of morbid obesity, simple gastric restrictive methods such as silicone adjustable gastric banding, vertical banded gastroplasty, and nonadjustable gastric banding often fail to control weight in the long run or give rise to intolerable side effects. Here we review our results from conversion of such failures to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The study comprised 44 patients (median age 42 years, range 24 to 60 years) who underwent revision surgery in 1996 and 1997. Body mass index at revision was 35 kg/m² (range 21 to 49 kg/m²). Previous bariatric procedures included silicone adjustable gastric banding (n = 26), vertical banded gastroplasty (n = 13), and gastric banding (n = 5). The most common reasons for conversion after silicone adjustable gastric banding and nonadjustable gastric banding were band erosion (n = 12) and esophagitis (n = 11). Staple line disruption (n = 12) with subsequent weight loss failure was the primary cause after vertical banded gastroplasty. There were no postoperative deaths or anastomotic leaks. One patient underwent reexploration because of an infected hematoma. Reflux symptoms and vomiting resolved promptly. At global assessment 2 years later, 70% of the patients were very satisfied. Median body mass index had decreased to 28 kg/m² (range 18 to 42 kg/m²). No patient was lost to followup. As reported previously, failure after vertical gastric banding can be treated by conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with good results. In this study we found that failure after silicone adjustable gastric banding can be treated successfully with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as well. Presented at the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting of The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, New Orleans, Louisiana, May 17–20, 1998 (poster presentation).     

Preoperative upper endoscopy is useful before revisional bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that patients who have previously had bariatric surgery and are undergoing revision to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass would have abnormal findings detected by upper endoscopy that could potentially influence patient management. The procedures that are being revised include vertical banded gastroplasty, laparoscopic adjustable gastric bands, nonadjustable gastric bands and previous Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (open and laparoscopic). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who previously had undergone vertical banded gastroplasty or nonadjustable gastric banding. We preoperatively performed an upper endoscopy on all patients. The endoscopy reports were reviewed and the findings entered into a database. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent of 46 patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery had an abnormal upper endoscopy. Eleven percent had a gastrogastric fistula. Gastritis and esophagitis were noted in 65% and 37%, respectively. Eleven percent of patients had band erosion, 2 from a nonadjustable band, and 5 from vertical banded gastroplasties. Based on our findings, 65% of our patients required medical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative upper endoscopy provides valuable information before revisional laparoscopic bariatric surgery. In addition to identifying patients who need preoperative medications, the preoperative upper endoscopy also provided valuable information regarding pouch size and anatomy. Preoperative upper endoscopy should be performed by the operating surgeon on every patient undergoing revisional bariatric surgery.     

Laparoscopic Removal of Poor Outcome Gastric Banding with Concomitant Sleeve Gastrectomy

Background

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has a significant incidence of long-term failure, which may require an alternative revisional bariatric procedure to remediate. Unfortunately, there is few data pinpointing which specific revisional procedure most effectively addresses failed gastric banding. Recently, it has been observed that laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a promising primary bariatric procedure; however, its use as a revisional procedure has been limited. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LSG performed concomitantly with removal of a poor-outcome LAGB.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent LAGB removal with concomitant LSG at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia between September 2007 and April 2012. Patient body mass index (BMI), percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), duration of operation, length of hospital stay, complications after LSG, and indications for revisional surgery were all reviewed and compared to those of patients who underwent LSG as a primary procedure.

Results

Fifty-six patients (70 % female) underwent conversion of LAGB to LSG concomitantly, and 128 (66 % female) patients underwent primary LSG surgery. The revisional and primary LSG patients had similar preoperative ages (mean age 33.5?±?10.7 vs. 33.6?±?9.0 years, respectively; p?=?0.43). However, revisional patients had a significantly lower BMI at the time of surgery (44.4?±?7.0 kg/m² vs. 47.9?±?8.2; p?<?0.01). Absolute BMI postoperative reduction at 24 months was 14.33 points in the revision group and 18.98 points in the primary LSG group; similar %EWL was achieved by both groups at 24 months postoperatively (80.1 vs. 84.6 %). Complications appeared in two (5.5 %) revisional patients and in nine (7.0 %) primary LSG patients. No mortalities occurred in either group.

Conclusions

Conversion of LAGB by means of concomitant LSG is a safe and efficient procedure and achieves similar outcomes as primary LSG surgery alone.     

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as Revisional Procedure for Failed Gastric Banding and Vertical Banded Gastroplasty

Background  The problem of revision of failed gastric banding (GB) and vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) procedures has become a common situation in bariatric surgery. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been recently used to revise failed restrictive procedures. The objective of this study is to evaluate the results of LSG as revisional procedure for failed GB and VBG. Methods  A prospective held database was questioned regarding patients' demographic, indication for revision, conversion to open surgery, morbidity, percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), evolution of comorbidities, and need for a second procedure after LSG. Results  Forty-one patients, 34 women and seven men with a mean age of 42 years (range 19 to 63 years) and a mean body mass index at 49.9 kg/m² (range 35.9–63 kg/m²), underwent laparoscopic conversion of GB (36 patients) and VBG (five patients) into LSG. Indication for revisional surgery was insufficient weight loss in all the cases. All procedures were completed laparoscopically. There was no mortality and five patients (12.2%) developed complications (high leak, one patient; intra-abdominal abscess, three patients; and complicated incisional hernia, one patient). At a mean follow-up of 13.4 months, %EWL is on average 42.7% (range 4–76.1%). Six patients had a second procedure (four had laparoscopic duodenal switch, one had laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and one had laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion). Conclusion  Conversion of GB and VBG into LSG is feasible and safe. LSG is effective in the short term with a mean %EWL of 42.7% at 13.4 months. Long-term results of LSG as revisional procedure are awaited to establish its efficacy in the long term.     

Long-term follow-up evaluation of revisional gastric bypass after failed adjustable gastric banding

Background

Disappointing long-term results, frequent band failure, and high rates of band-related complications increasingly necessitate revisional surgery after adjustable gastric banding. Laparoscopic conversion to gastric bypass has been recommended as the procedure of choice. This single-center retrospective study aimed to evaluate the long-term results of revisional gastric bypass after failed adjustable gastric banding.

Methods

The study included 108 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic conversion of gastric banding to gastric bypass from 2002 to 2012. Indications for surgery, operative data, weight development, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. The median follow-up period was 3.4 years (maximum, 10 years).

Results

The most common indications for band removal were band migration, insufficient weight loss, and pouch dilation. The median interval between gastric banding and gastric bypass was 6.6 years. In 52 % of the cases, band removal and gastric bypass surgery were performed simultaneously as a single-stage laparoscopic procedure. The early postoperative morbidity rate was 10.2 %. The body mass index before gastric banding (43.3 kg/m²) decreased significantly to 37.9 kg/m² before gastric bypass and to 28.8 kg/m² 5 years after gastric bypass.

Conclusions

This is the first report on the long-term outcome after conversion of failed adjustable gastric banding to gastric bypass. Findings have shown revisional gastric bypass to be a feasible bariatric procedure particularly for patients with insufficient weight loss that guarantees a constant and long-lasting weight loss.     

Reasons and outcomes of laparoscopic revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding for morbid obesity

BackgroundLaparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is a purely restrictive procedure that has been proved to be an effective tool in achieving weight loss. The low operative morbidity and reversibility are often seen as advantages of this procedure compared with other bariatric approaches. We have attempted to define the reasons for revisional surgery after LAGB and the outcomes.MethodsA retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed from February 2001 to October 2008 at a center of excellence after institutional review board approval. The patients who had undergone revisional surgery after primary LAGB were evaluated.ResultsOf 343 patients who had undergone primary LAGB, 60 subsequently underwent a revisional procedure. In addition, 28 revisional procedures were performed on patients who had undergone primary LAGB at an outside institution. These procedures included 39 (44.3%) band removals alone, 12 (13.6%) band removals with conversion to sleeve gastrectomy, 13 (14.8%) band removals with conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 9 (10.2%) band repositioning, and 2 (2.3%) band replacements. In addition, 13 (14.8%) port-related procedures (3 relocations, 6 reconnections, and 4 replacements/removals) were performed.ConclusionAlthough reversible and efficacious, LAGB appears to have a high incidence of complications requiring revisional surgery and/or band removal. The results of our study have shown that laparoscopic revisional surgery after primary LAGB is safe and can be performed with minimal morbidity.     

An Adjustable Vertical Banded Gastroplasty does not Eliminate the Risk of Staple-line Disruption

Background: The two main reasons for reoperation after vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) in the treatment of obesity are staple-line disruption and stomal stenosis. Patients: Seven morbidly obese patients of mean (±SEM) body mass index (BMI) 43.7 ± 1.9 kg/m² treated with an adjustable vertical banded gastroplasty (AVBG). Results: No complications of the band system were reported. Weight-loss [BMI at 2 years follow-up 33.9 ± 6.9 kg/m² (n = 5)] was equivalent to that seen after VBG with a fixed band. Two of the patients developed staple-line disruption at 18 and 24 months after surgery. Conclusion: AVBG allows adjustment of the stoma, but staple-line disruption was common in this small series. It is possible that an excessive filling of the band in order to achieve excess weight loss results in a high pressure in the upper pouch which increases the risk of staple-line disruption.     

Conversion from laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) to one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB): preliminary data from a multicenter retrospective study

BackgroundLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most commonly performed bariatric procedure, while laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been for a decade one of the most popular interventions for weight loss. After LSG and LAGB, some patients may require a second surgery due to weight regain or late complications. One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a promising bariatric procedure, which provides effective long-term weight loss and has a favorable effect on type 2 diabetes.ObjectivesTo retrospectively analyze data from 10 Italian centers on conversion from LAGB and LSG to OAGB.SettingHigh-volume centers for bariatric surgery.MethodsProspectively collected data from 10 high-volume centers were retrospectively reviewed. Body mass index (BMI), percentage of excess BMI loss, reasons for redo, remission from co-morbidities (hypertension, diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux, and dyslipidemia), and major complications were recorded.ResultsThree hundred patients were included in the study; 196 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to OAGB and 104 were converted from LSG. BMI was 45.1 ± 7 kg/m² at the time of first intervention, 41.8 ± 6.3 kg/m² at redo time, and 30.5 ± 5.5 kg/m² at last follow-up appointment. Mean percentage of excess BMI loss was 13.2 ± 28.2 at conversion and 73.4 ± 27.5 after OAGB. Remission rates from hypertension, diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux, and dyslipidemia were 40%, 62.5%, 58.7% and 52%, respectively. Mean follow-up was 20.8 (range, 6–156) months and overall complications rate was 8.6%.ConclusionOur data show that OAGB is a safe and effective revisional procedure after failed restrictive bariatric surgery.     

Laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty

Background The commonest surgical procedure for management of morbid obesity in Europe is laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), even though laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty (LVBG) is still considered to be a gold standard restrictive option in bariatric surgery. A multicenter prospective study was designed to to assess the efficacy of LVBG in terms of weight loss and complication rates for obese patients who have indications for a restrictive procedure. Patients and methods Two-hundred morbidly obese patients (84.5% female) with a mean age of 41 years and mean body mass index (BMI) of 43.2 kg/m² underwent LVBG as described by MacLean. Five trocars were placed in standard positions as per laparoscopic upper gastrointestinal surgery. A vertical gastric pouch (30 ml) was created with circular (21 or 25mm) and endolinear stapling techniques, enabling definitive separation of the two parts of the stomach. The gastric outlet was calibrated with either a polypropylene mesh (5.5 cm in length and 1cm in width) or a nonadjustable silicone band. The median follow-up period was 30 months (range, 1–72 months). Results One case had to be converted to open surgery (gastric perforation) and there was one death secondary to peritonitis of unknown etiology. The morbidity rate was 24%, comprising the following complications: gastric outlet stenosis (8%); staple line leak (2.5%); food trapping (1.5%); peritonitis (1%); thrombophlebitis (1.5%); pulmonary embolism (0.5%); and gastroesophageal reflux (9%). The excess weight loss achieved was 56.7% (1 year), 68.3% (2 years), and 65.1% (3 years). Conclusions Laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty is an effective procedure for the surgical management of morbid obesity, especially for patients who present hyperphagia but are unable to manage the constraints of adjustable gastric banding. Laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty is safe, as demonstrated by an acceptable complication rate, of which gastric outlet stenosis, staple line leakage, and gastroesophageal reflux predominate.     

Gastroesophageal reflux after intact vertical banded gastroplasty: Correction by conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease is common in our experience after vertical banded gastroplasty. Our aim was to determine the safety and efficacy of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in the treatment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease complicating vertical banded gastroplasty. We evaluated prospectively collected data on 25 patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery because of severe gastroesophageal reflux disease after vertical banded gastroplasty. Only 4 of 25 patients had gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms prior to vertical banded gastroplasty. Endoscopic findings in 24 patients included esophagitis (SS%), Barrett’s esophagus (28%), pouchitis (29%), and gastritis (2 1%); 7 (28%) of 25 patients had evidence of stenosis at the pouch outlet. Mean follow-up (complete in all 2 5) after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was 3 7 ±7 months (range 3 to 102 months). There were no deaths. Post-operative complications occurred in six patients: pneumonia in two, wound infection in two, prolonged drainage of the defunctionalized stomach via gastrostomy in one, and fever in one. Median hospitalization was 7 days (range 5 to 43 days). At follow-up (3 7 ±7 months), 24 (96%) of 25 are completely or almost completely symptom free. Body mass index was 33 ±2 kg/m2 before and 28 ±2 kg/m² after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (P = 0.001). Symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease are common after vertical banded gastroplasty. Conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is safe, relieves gastroesophageal reflux disease, and promotes further weight loss. Moreover, maladaptive eating (vomiting, and so forth) induced by vertical banded gastroplasty is relieved. Supported by the Mayo Foundation, Astra Pharmaceuticals AG, Basel, Switzerland, and the Department of Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Bern, Switzerland. Presented in part at the Fortieth Annual Meeting of The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, Orlando, Fla., May 16–19, 1999, and published as an abstract in Gastroenrerology 116:A1348, 1999.     

One-year weight loss after primary or revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for failed adjustable gastric banding

BackgroundAdjustable gastric banding has been widely used in Europe, but recently gastric bypass (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [RYGB]) has become the procedure of choice. With a gastric banding failure rate of nearly 40% at 5 years, the need for revisional surgery is increasing. The effect of a failed previous bariatric surgery on the weight loss curve after RYGB is still a controversial issue.MethodsA total of 259 patients underwent RYGB from 2003 to 2007, 58 after failed gastric banding and 201 as primary surgery. All the procedures were laparoscopically performed by the same surgeon at a single institution. The postoperative course and the percentage of excess weight loss were compared between the 2 groups.ResultsThe 2 groups were similar in age and initial body mass index (46.3 ± 7.2 kg/m² for revision versus 47.7 ± 6.7 kg/m² for primary RYGB). In contrast, the prerevision body mass index was 43.2 ± 7.0 kg/m². Revisional RYGB required a significantly longer operative time (128.3 ± 25.9 minutes versus 89.0 ± 14.7 minutes, P <.0001) and the morbidity was greater (8.6% versus 5.5%), but no patient died in the postoperative period after revision. As determined from the initial body mass index, the 1-year percentage of excess weight loss was comparable between the 2 groups (66.1% ± 26.8% and 70.4% ± 18.9%).ConclusionWhen RYGB is performed after an adjustable gastric band failure to restore weight loss or because of a complication, the weight loss curve is similar to that after primary RYGB. Therefore, the strategy of adjustable gastric banding first is an option that does not seem to preclude satisfactory weight loss after revision to RYGB.     

Previous Bariatric Surgery Increases Postoperative Morbidity after Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity

Objectives : Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has been used as the first step of a staged malabsorptive procedure for high-risk patients. More recently SG was proposed as an stand alone procedure in the treatment of morbidly obese patients. The aim of this study is to analyze perioperative outcome of morbid obese patients after SG. Methods : 301 patients, 201 women and 100 men, undergoing SG were retrospectively analyzed. SG was performed by 17 surgeons all member of the Club Coelio.

The mean BMI was 44.7kg/m² (27.4–70.3 kg/m²). 34 patients (11.3%) of our series had SG as revisional surgery. These revisional procedures consisted of 32 conversions from gastric banding, 1 conversion from vertical gastroplasty (VBG) and 1 from transoral endoscopic gastroplasty. Among the 32 patients that had revisional SG after a gastric banding, 13 bands were removed at least 3 months before the revisional SG and 19 bands were removed during the SG procedure. Endpoints were perioperative morbidity and mortality and potential risk factors for complications, mainly per or postoperative bleeding or leakage.

Results : Overall mortality was 0% and morbidity was 10.3%. Perioperative bleeding occurred in 10 patients (3.3%), leakage in 12 patients (4%) patients and stenosis in 3 patients (1%). The risk of leakage was significantly higher after revisional bariatric surgery and in case of gastric perforation during surgery(p = 0.0001). Previous gastric banding is also associated with a higher risk of postoperative bleeding (p = 0.0006).

Conclusions : SG can be safely performed but patients and surgeons must be aware of a higher risk of postoperative complications when SG is proposed as a revisional surgery.     

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

BackgroundAlthough 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe mean age and body mass index at revision was 41.27 years (range 25–58) and 44.8 ± 6.34 kg/m², 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.ConclusionThe 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.     

Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banded Plication: a Case-Matched Comparative Study with Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been accepted as stand-alone restrictive bariatric procedure; laparoscopic adjustable gastric banded plication (LAGBP) is an innovative technique combining gastric banding and plication of the stomach. This study aims to compare LAGBP with LSG in terms of percent excess weight loss (%EWL), resolution of comorbidities, and complications. This study was conducted in a university hospital. We retrospectively analyzed data of 60 patients: 30 each receiving LSG and LAGBP between May 2009 to October 2010. Demographics, operative data, complications, % EWL, and resolution of comorbidities were analyzed and compared. All the patients were followed for at least 1 year. LSG and LAGBP were matched for age, sex, body mass index and comorbidity ratio. Mean operative time was significantly longer in LAGBP: 62.45?±?30.1 vs. 86.01?±?21.88 (p?=?0.001). Both groups had similar complication rates (6.67 %) and most of the patients achieved significant resolution of comorbidities. The mean %EWL was statistically significant for LSG till 18 months follow-up as compared to LAGBP, but there was no difference at 2 years (p?=?0.971). Mean frequency of band adjustment after LAGBP in 2 years was 1.50?±?1.51. There was no significant difference in comorbidity resolution in both groups. LAGBP is a dual restrictive bariatric procedure offering similar results with LSG at 2 years in terms of complications, % EWL, and comorbidity resolution with potential of continual weight loss due to band.     

Redo Gastric Restriction: A Higher Risk Procedure

Twenty-one patients have undergone redo gastric restrictive procedures, three after gastric bypass, 18 after gastroplasty. Weight at the time of the redo procedure was 101 kg ± 32.4 SD (222 lb ± 71.2) (178% IBW ± 33.8), down from 137 kg ± 65.5) (217% IBW ± 33.9) at the time of initial procedure. Sixteen of 21 (76%) initial procedures failed because of staple-line dehiscence, at least in part. Redo procedures were vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) in ten, gastric bypass (GB) in ten, and silico ring banded gastroplasty in one. Early complications were three gastric leaks, one enterocutaneous fistula, one gastroplasty outlet obstruction, and one wound infection occurring in three of ten VBG and three of ten GB. All three leaks and one fistula were not seen on gastrograffin/barium swallow done 2-4 days after the redo procedure. Late complications were failure of seven redo procedures, one small bowel obstruction, and one recurrent enterocutaneous fistula, with two lost to followup. We conclude that redo gastric restriction procedures carry relatively high perioperative risks. Radiologic contrast studies done in the early postoperative period do not necessarily detect leaks, which are presumably due to gastric ischemia and subsequent infarction. Ischemia is thought to be due to devascularization from the initial procedure. Late failure is unfortunately common, possibly reflecting behaviours which lead to the initial staple line dehiscence and failure. Higher risk of perioperative complications and late failure must be considered prior to revisional surgery.     

Safety and feasibility of revisional laparoscopic surgery for morbid obesity: conversion of open silastic vertical banded gastroplasty to laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding

Background: Since the 1980s, bypass operations have been largely replaced by gastric restrictive operations. One of the most commonly performed operations for gastric restriction is vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG). However, the results are often disappointing. Adjustable gastric banding (AGB) is a viable alternative to VBG, and the ability to perform this surgery laparoscopically makes it an attractive option for patients in need of revisional surgery. It allows for refashioning of the gastric pouch in patients with a dilation of the pouch or disruption of the staple line. Methods: A total of 48 patients were referred to our center due to post-VBG weight gain. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation to determine the cause for failure of the operation. All patients found suitable for revisional surgery underwent laparoscopic placement of an adjustable band. Results: All but one of the operations were completed laparoscopically; one patient required conversion to open surgery prior to band placement via laparoscopy. This patient needed a blood transfusion. Postoperative band erosion occurred in one patient; laparoscopy surgery was used successfully for removal of the band and suturing of the stomach. Conclusions: Our short-term results indicate that revisional operation for morbid obesity using laparoscopic AGB is a safe procedure when performed cautiously. It enables early patient mobilization and discharge with good functional results and fewer perioperative complications.