Revisional versus primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a case-matched analysis

Background

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been a widely performed bariatric procedure. Unfortunately, revisional surgery is required in 20–30 % of cases. Data comparing revisional and primary gastric bypass procedures are scarce. This study compared revisional malabsorptive laparoscopic very very long limb (VVLL) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with primary VVLL RYGB and tested the hypothesis that one-stage revisional laparoscopic VVLL RYGB is an effective procedure after failed LAGB.

Methods

In this study, 48 revisional VVLL RYGBs were matched one-to-one with 48 primary VVLL RYGBs. The outcome measures were operating time, conversion to open surgery, excess weight loss (EWL), and early and late morbidity.

Results

Surgical and medical morbidities did not differ significantly. No conversions occurred. The revisional group showed an EWL of 41.8 % after 12 months of follow-up evaluation and 45.1 % after 24 months based on the pre-revisional weight. The total EWL based on the weight before the LAGB was calculated to be 54.3 % after 12 months and 57.2 % after 24 months. The EWL in the primary RYGB group was significantly higher for both types of calculation: 41.8 %/54.3 % versus 64.1 % (p < 0.001 and <0.01) after 12 months and 45.1 %/57.2 % versus 70.4 % (p < 0.001 and <0.002) after 24 months.

Conclusions

Revisional laproscopic VVLL RYGB can be performed as a one-stage procedure by experienced bariatric surgeons but shows less effective EWL than primary RYGB procedures.     

Revisional Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Following Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding

Background

Obesity is a worldwide epidemic and surgery is the only proven long-term treatment. The two most commonly performed bariatric procedures are laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). There are advocates of both procedures but LAGB is associated with potentially high failure rates and may require conversion to an alternative procedure.

Methods

This study reports our unit results for failed LAGB converted to LRYGB and compares them to primary LRYGB patients. All patients undergoing revisional LRYGB from July 2006 to December 2011 were included in the study. Comparisons were made to patients undergoing primary LRYGB over the same time period for post-operative weight loss, complications and length of stay.

Results

Of the patients, 722 were analysed of which 55 underwent revisional surgery. There was no statistical difference in percentage of excess weight loss at 6 months, 1 year or 2 years following surgery between the primary and revisional surgery cohorts (54.5, 63.7, 65.2 vs 51.6, 59.5, 59.4, p?=?NS). There was no difference in morbidity, mortality or length of stay between the two groups. Revisional LRYGB was carried out as a single surgery in 43 (78 %) patients.

Conclusions

Revisional LRYGB surgery can be carried out safely and efficiently in experienced bariatric units. Good short- and medium-term weight loss can be achieved with no increase in morbidity, mortality or length of hospital stay. This study adds weight to the argument that LRYGB is the revisional procedure of choice following failed LAGB.     

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.     

Sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass as revisional bariatric procedures: retrospective evaluation of outcomes

Background

A considerable number of patients require revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Studies that compared the outcomes of revisional sleeve gastrectomy (r-SG) and revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (r-RYGB) after failed LAGB are scarce in the literature. Our objective was to determine whether significant differences exist in outcomes between r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB.

Methods

From 2005 to 2012, patients who underwent laparoscopic r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB were retrospectively compared and analyzed. Data included demographics, indication for revision, operative time, hospital stay, conversion rate, percentage excess weight loss (%EWL), and morbidity and mortality.

Results

Out of 693 bariatric procedures, 42 r-SG and 53 r-RYGB were performed. The median preoperative weight (107.7 and 117.7 kg, respectively, p = 0.02) and body mass index (BMI) (38.5 vs. 43.2 kg/m², respectively, p = 0.01) were statistically significantly lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB. The mean operative time and median hospital stay were significantly shorter in r-SG than in r-RYGB (108.4 vs. 161.2 min, p < 0.01) (2 vs. 3 days, p = 0.02), respectively. One patient underwent conversion to open surgery after r-RYGB (p = 0.5). The reoperation rate was lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB (0.0 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.5). There was one postoperative leak in the r-RYGB, and the overall complication rate was significantly lower in r-SG patients than in r-RYGB patients (7.1 vs. 20.8 %, p = 0.05). The mean follow-up was significantly shorter in the r-SG group (9.8 vs. 29.3 months, p < 0.01). However, the mean postoperative BMI was not different at 1 year (32.3 vs. 34.7, p = 0.29) as well as mean %EWL was (47.4 vs. 45.6 %, p = 0.77).

Conclusions

Both r-SG and r-RYGB are safe procedures with similar outcomes in terms of %EWL. As a result of the long-term potential nutritional complication of r-RYGB, r-SG may be a better option in this group of patients. Longer follow-up is needed.     

Band removal and conversion to sleeve or bypass: are they equally safe?

Introduction

Patients who require laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) removal are often converted to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). The relative safety of these salvage bariatric procedures is unclear. We hypothesized that LAGB removal with conversion to SG (BSG) or RYGB (BRYGB) would be associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to primary SG or RYGB.

Methods

National Surgical Quality Improvement Project data (2005–2011) were analyzed. Patients undergoing SG, RYGB, BRYGB, and BSG were identified. The incidence of major complications, as well as mortality was compared between groups. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify patient factors and operation types associated with major complications or mortality. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) with p value <0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 51,609 patients were analyzed, consisting of primary RYGB (n = 46,153), BRYGB (495), primary SG (n = 4,831), and BSG (n = 130) patients. All groups had similar mean age (45 ± 11-years old). Salvage patients were more commonly female (89 vs. 79 %) and with lower body-mass index than primary bariatric patients (BMI 42 ± 8 vs. 46 ± 8 kg/m2). Major complication rates were 5.23 % (RYGB), 4.65 % (BRYGB), 3.95 % (SG) and 6.92 % (BSG), with 30-day mortality of 0.16 % (RYGB), 0.20 % (BRYGB), 0.08 % (SG) and 0.77 % (BSG). Multivariate analysis showed that compared to SG, RYGB, and BSG were independent predictors of major complications. Multivariate analysis of mortality showed BSG was an independent predictor of mortality compared to SG (OR 8.02, 95 % CI 1.08–59.34, p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Band removal with conversion to RYGB is not associated with higher morbidity or mortality compared to primary RYGB. However, band removal with conversion to sleeve gastrectomy appears to be independently associated with a higher rate of major complications and mortality, and thus may not be the salvage procedure of choice.     

Revisional bariatric surgery: perioperative morbidity is determined by type of procedure

Background

Revisional bariatric procedures are on the rise. The higher complexity of these procedures has been reported to lead to increased risk of complications. The objective of our study was to compare the perioperative risk profile of revisional bariatric surgery with primary bariatric surgery in our experience.

Methods

A prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing bariatric surgery by three fellowship-trained bariatric surgeons from June 2005 to January 2013 at a center of excellence was reviewed. Patient demographics, type of initial and revisional operation, number of prior gastric surgeries, indications for revision, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations were recorded. These outcomes were compared between revisional and primary procedures by the Mann–Whitney or Chi square tests.

Results

Of 1,556 patients undergoing bariatric surgery, 102 patients (6.5 %) underwent revisional procedures during the study period. Indications for revisions included inadequate weight loss in 67, failed fundoplications with recurrent gastroesophageal reflux disease in 29, and other in 6 cases. Revisional bariatric procedures belonged into four categories: band to sleeve gastrectomy (n = 23), band to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 25), fundoplication to bypass (n = 29), and other (n = 25). Revisional procedures were associated with higher rates of readmissions and overall morbidity but no differences in leak rates and mortality compared with primary procedures. Band revisions had similar length of stay with primary procedures and had fewer complications compared with other revisions. Patients undergoing fundoplication to bypass revisions were older, had a higher number of prior gastric procedures, and the highest morbidity (40 %) and reoperation (20 %) rates.

Conclusions

In experienced hands, many revisional bariatric procedures can be accomplished safely, with excellent perioperative outcomes that are similar to primary procedures. As the complexity of the revisional procedure and number of prior surgeries increases, however, so does the perioperative morbidity, with fundoplication revisions to gastric bypass representing the highest risk group.     

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Vertical Banded Gastroplasty Converted to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Background

Vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) often necessitates revisional surgery for weight regain or symptoms related to gastric outlet obstruction. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is considered as the revisional procedure of choice. However, revisional bariatric surgery is associated with relatively higher rates of complications. The aim of the current study is to analyse our single-centre experience with patients requiring revisional RYGB following primary VBG.

Methods

Retrospective review of the prospectively collected database identified 153 patients who underwent RYGB as a revisional procedure after VBG from Feb 2004–Feb 2011. Early and late complications, weight data and resolution of symptoms related to gastric outlet obstruction were analysed.

Results

One hundred twenty-three females and 30 males underwent revisional RYGB post VBG. Mean age was 44.4 (15–74) years with a mean pre-operative body mass index (BMI) of 34.2 (23.5–65.5) kg/m². Mean hospital stay was 4.3 days. Early complication rate was 3.9 % with a 30-day re-operation rate of 1.3 %. Mortality and leak rate were zero. After a mean follow-up of 48 months, the mean BMI decreased significantly to 28.8 kg/m² and a complete resolution of the obstructive symptoms was achieved in nearly all patients. Late complications developed in 11 (7.7 %) of the patients of which seven (4.9 %) required surgery.

Conclusions

Revisional RYGB following VBG is technically challenging but safe with low rates of morbidity and mortality, comparable to primary RYGB. It produces a significant reduction in body weight and in symptoms resolution. We recommend RYGB as the procedure of choice in patients requiring revisional surgery following VBG.     

The Effect of Dumping on Weight Loss in Conversion of Failed Restrictive Surgery: a Cross-Sectional Pilot Study

Purpose

Dumping is currently seen as a negative side effect of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). However, it may help patients to comply with their prescribed diet. In this study, we assess the role of dumping on weight loss in patients who have undergone conversion of failed restrictive surgery into RYGB.

Methods

An analysis was performed of 100 consecutive patients who underwent revisional RYGB (rRYGB) between 2006 and 2011 due to inadequate weight loss or band intolerance after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). The percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) was used to evaluate weight reduction. The Sigstad clinical diagnostic index was used to detect dumping symptoms.

Results

Fifty-five patients (59.1%) suffered from dumping. Overall, dumpers showed a greater %EWL than non-dumpers (83.8 ± 48.0 vs 66.9 ± 44.1%, respectively, p = 0.0725). When rRYGB was performed because of inadequate weight loss following LAGB, dumping played a crucial role in weight loss (88.0 ± 21.2 vs 68.9 ± 34.5%, p = 0.0137). This effect positively correlates to post-LAGB body mass index (BMI) with a statistically significant result at BMI >?35 kg/m² (82.4 ± 15.7 vs 58.4 ± 32.4%, p = 0.00341). A regression analysis of the Sigstad dumping score and %EWL shows that dumping tends to increase the %EWL.

Conclusions

This study provides new insights into the effect of dumping on weight loss in patients who underwent conversion of failed restrictive surgery into RYGB. Based on the findings in our patient group, we suggest that dumping helps patients achieve sustainable weight loss. Therefore, dumping can be regarded as a positive side effect rather than a complication.

     

Comparative effects of gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy on plasma osteopontin concentrations in humans

Background

Bariatric surgery (BS) has proven to be an effective treatment for morbid obesity. Osteopontin (OPN) is a proinflammatory cytokine involved in the development of obesity. The aim of our study was to determine the effect of weight loss following BS on circulating levels of OPN in humans.

Methods

Body composition and circulating concentrations of OPN and markers of bone metabolism were determined in obese patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB; n = 40) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG; n = 11).

Results

Patients who underwent RYGB or SG showed decreased body weight (P < 0.001) and body fat percentage (P < 0.001) as well as lower insulin resistance. However, plasma OPN levels were significantly increased after RYGB (P < 0.001) but remained unchanged following SG (P = 0.152). Patients who underwent RYGB also showed significantly increased C-terminal telopeptide of type-I collagen (ICTP) (P < 0.01) and osteocalcin (P < 0.001) while bone mineral density tended to decrease (P = 0.086). Moreover, OPN concentrations were positively correlated with the bone resorption marker ICTP after surgery. On the other hand, patients who underwent SG showed significantly increased ICTP levels (P < 0.05), and the change in OPN was positively correlated with the change in ICTP and negatively with the change in vitamin D after surgery (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

RYGB increased circulating OPN levels, while they remained unaltered after SG. The increase in OPN levels after RYGB could be related to the increased bone resorption in relation to its well-known effects on bone of this malabsorptive procedure in comparison to the merely restrictive SG.     

Case-matched analysis comparing outcomes of revisional versus primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Background

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is one of the most common approaches used to revise post-bariatric patients with inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain. Previous studies have analyzed the outcomes of open revisional RYGB versus primary RYGB, but no case–control matched analysis comparing revisional LRYGB versus primary LRYGB has been performed.

Methods

Our cohort includes 37 consecutive patients who underwent revisional LRYGB because of unsatisfactory weight loss or weight regain matched in a 1:2 ratio with 74 control patients who underwent primary LRYGB. Matching included the following parameters: age, gender, preoperative body mass index and comorbidities (diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, and hypertension).

Results

The revisional group had longer length of stay compared with the primary group (3.8 vs. 2.4 days, P = 0.02) and a higher conversion to laparotomy rate (10.8 vs. 0 %, P = 0.01). The revisional group had a higher 30-day morbidity compared with the primary group (27 vs. 8.1 %, P = 0.02). There were no deaths in both groups. The two groups had similar 30-day readmission and 30 day reoperation rates. At 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up, the revisional LRYGB group had significantly lower percent of excess weight loss (EWL) than the primary LRYGB group (3 months, 30 vs. 38.4, P = 0.001; 6 months, 36.3 vs. 52.9, P = 0.001; 12 months, 46.5 vs. 68.2, P = 0.001).

Conclusions

Revisional LRYGB is characterized by lower EWL and higher morbidity than primary LRYGB. However, our data suggest that revisional LRYGB is still capable of providing significant weight loss in these high-risk patients.     

Revisional Bariatric Surgery for Unsuccessful Weight Loss and Complications

Background

There are growing numbers of patients who require revisional bariatric surgery due to the undesirable results of their primary procedures. The aim of this study was to review our experience with bariatric patients undergoing revisional surgery.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis to review the indications for revisional bariatric procedures and assess their postoperative outcomes.

Results

From 04/04 to 01/11, 2,918 patients underwent bariatric surgery at our institution. A total of 154 patients (5.3 %) of these cases were coded as revisional procedures. The mean age at revision was 49.1?±?11.3 and the mean BMI was 44.0?±?13.7 kg/m². Revisional surgery was performed laparoscopically in 121 patients (78.6 %). Laparoscopic revisions had less blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and fewer complications compared to open revisions. Two groups (A and B) were defined by the indication for revision: patients with unsuccessful weight loss (group A, n?=?106) and patients with complications of their primary procedures (group B, n?=?48). In group A, 74.5 % of the patients were revised to a bypass procedure and 25.5 % to a restrictive procedure. Mean excess weight loss was 53.7?±?29.3 % after revision of primary restrictive procedures and 37.6?±?35.1 % after revision of bypass procedures at >1-year follow-up (p?<?0.05). In group B, the complications prompting revision were effectively treated by revisional surgery.

Conclusions

Revisional bariatric surgery effectively treated the undesirable results from primary bariatric surgery. Laparoscopic revisional surgery can be performed after both failed open and laparoscopic bariatric procedures without a prohibitive complication rate. Carefully selected patients undergoing revision for weight regain have satisfactory additional weight loss.     

Sleeve Gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Lead to Comparable Changes in Body Composition after Adjustment for Initial Body Mass Index

Background

Bariatric surgery is a safe and established treatment option of morbid obesity. Mere percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) should not be the only goal of treatment.

Methods

One hundred seventy-three obese patients were included in the study. They underwent either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB; n?=?127, mean body mass index (BMI) 45.7?±?5.7 kg/m²) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG; n?=?46, mean BMI 55.9?±?7.8 kg/m²) for weight reduction. Body weight and body composition were assessed periodically by bioelectrical impedance analysis.

Results

After 1 year of observation, %EWL was 62.9?±?18.0 % in RYGB and 52.3?±?15.0 % in SG (p?=?0.0024). Body fat was reduced in both procedures with a slight preference for SG, and lean body mass was better preserved in the RYGB group. Due to significant differences in the initial BMI between the two groups, an analysis of covariance was performed, which demonstrated no significant differences in the %EWL as well as in the other parameters of body composition 1 year after surgery. Using percentage of total weight loss to evaluate the outcomes between the two procedures, no significant difference was found (31.7?±?8.4 % in RYGB and 30.5?±?7.6 % in SG patients, p?>?0.4).

Conclusions

Excess weight loss is highly influenced by the initial BMI. Total weight loss seems to be a better measurement tool abolishing initial weight differences. SG and RYGB do not differ in terms of body composition and weight loss 1 year after surgery.

     

Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy: the Same Impact on IL-6 and TNF-α. Prospective Clinical Trial

Background

Due to the association between the quantity of adipose tissue and concentrations of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α), this work aimed to assess the effects of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) procedures on serum IL-6 and TNF-α concentrations.

Methods

This study evaluated serum IL-6 and TNF-α levels, as well as routine anthropometric and biochemical values, before and 1 year post-bariatric surgery. Fifty percent of patients (n?=?24) underwent RYGB, and 50 % (n?=?24) underwent SG. Prior to bariatric surgery, IL-6 and TNF-α mRNA expression levels in subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) were investigated in obese women.

Results

There was a significant reduction (p?<?0.05) in all anthropometric and routine biochemical measurements in patients in the RYGB and SG groups 1 year post-surgery. The serum concentrations of IL-6 and TNF-α were reduced following surgery in both groups (p?<?0.05). No differences in the relative expression levels of IL-6 and TNF-α were found between SAT and VAT prior to bariatric surgery.

Conclusions

RYGB and SG procedures demonstrated a similar impact on adipokine levels in women 1 year post-surgery. Both techniques may improve the course of chronic diseases and the state of inflammation associated with obesity.     

Improvement in Cardiovascular Indices After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass or Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity

Background

Morbidly obese patients display cardiac abnormalities which are partially reversed after weight loss. The aim of the present study was to assess the potential difference in cardiovascular disease indices between patients who underwent either gastric bypass surgery or sleeve gastrectomy.

Methods

Thirty-seven morbidly obese patients who underwent either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (n?=?14) or SG (n?=?23) were examined before, 3 and 6 months after surgery. Indices of cardiac autonomic nervous system activity were evaluated, namely baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) and heart rate variability (HRV). A complete echocardiographic study was performed in a subgroup of 17 patients (RYGB 8, SG 9) preoperatively and 6 months after surgery, evaluating epicardial fat thickness, aortic distensibility, left ventricular (LV) Tei index, left atrium diameter, ejection fraction, and LV mass.

Results

All subjects experienced significant (p?<?0.001) and similar weight loss independently of the type of operation. BRS and HRV indices improved significantly and to the same degree after surgery in both groups. In the echocardiographic study, all parameters improved significantly at 6 months in comparison with the baseline values. In addition, the RYGB group displayed significantly greater reduction in epicardial fat thickness (p?=?0.007) and also tended to have a better LV performance as expressed by the lower values of the Tei index (p?=?0.06) compared to the SG group 6 months after surgery.

Conclusions

Both RYGB and SG exert comparable effects on weight loss and improvement of cardiovascular parameters. RYGB displays a more beneficial influence on epicardial fat thickness and left ventricular performance than SG.     

Natural orifice surgery: initial US experience utilizing the StomaphyXTM device to reduce gastric pouches after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Introduction

Weight gain after gastric bypass can occur in up to 10% of patients 5 years following and in about 20% of patients 10 years following surgery. The nadir weight is usually reached within the first 2 years after bypass surgery. However, weight may slowly be regained for numerous reasons. This phenomenon has been studied extensively, but there is often no one reason this occurs. Once psychological and dietary reasons have been investigated, revisional surgery may be the only alternative for treatment. Revisional gastric bypass surgery is associated with a much higher morbidity and mortality when compared with a primary gastric bypass procedure.

Patients and methods

Thirty-nine patients underwent endoluminal gastric pouch reduction with the StomaphyX^TM device after informed consent. The StomaphyX^TM device is a sterile, single-use device for use in endoluminal transoral tissue approximation and ligation in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract.

Results

Average age was 47.8 (29–64) years, and 36/39 (92.3%) patients were female. Average body mass index (BMI) and weight prior to the StomaphyX^TM procedure were 39.8 (22.7–63.2) kg/m² and 108.0 kg (65.90–172.2 kg). The average preprocedure excess body weight was 51.1 kg. Weight loss at 2 weeks (n = 39) was 3.8 kg (7.4% excess body weight loss, EBWL), at 1 month (n = 34) was 5.4 kg (10.6% EBWL), at 2 months (n = 26) was 6.7 kg (13.1% EBWL), at 3 months (n = 15) was 6.7 kg (13.1% EBWL), at 6 months (n = 14) was 8.7 kg (17.0% EBWL), and at 1 year (n = 6) was 10.0 kg (19.5% EBWL). No major complications were observed. The minor complications that were seen included a sore throat lasting less than 48 h in 34/39 patients (87.1%) and epigastric pain that lasted for a few days in 30/39 patients (76.9%). Three patients with chronic diarrhea had their symptoms resolved after the procedure. Eight patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease reported improvement in their symptoms post procedure.

Conclusions

Endoluminal revision of gastric bypass patients with weight gain using the StomaphyX^TM procedure may offer an alternative to open or laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery.     

Evolution of Glycolipid Profile After Sleeve Gastrectomy vs. Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Results of a Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

This study aims to report glycolipid changes after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in the setting of a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Methods

One hundred patients were randomly assigned to RYGB (n?=?45) and SG (n?=?55). Fasting glucose, insulin, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c%), triglycerides, and serum cholesterol (total, HDL, and LDL) were evaluated at inclusion and after 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The index for homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and β cell function (HOMA-B) were assessed.

Results

Mean postoperative 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month excess weight loss was 25.39, 43.47, 63.75, and 80.38 % after RYGB and 25.25, 51.32, 64.67, and 82.97 % after SG, respectively. Mean fasting glucose and fasting serum insulin were similarly and statistically significantly reduced in both RYGB and SG. Mean HOMA-IR improved in both groups, particularly in case of high preoperative values, and mean HOMA-B improved at 1 year after RYGB. HbA1c% dropped from 5.66 % (SD?=?0.61) to 5.57 % (SD?=?0.32) after RYGB and from 5.64 % (SD?=?0.43) to 5.44 % (SD?=?0.43) after SG. Total cholesterol was significantly higher at 1 month (p?=?0.04), 3 months (p?=?0.03), and 1 year (p?=?0.005) after SG as compared to RYGB. LDL cholesterol decreased significantly after RYGB at 1 month (p?=?0.03), 3 months (p?=?0.0001), and 1 year (p?=?0.0004) as compared to SG. HDL cholesterol was increased at 1 year in the RYGB group but not in the SG group. Triglycerides decreased similarly in both groups.

Conclusions

Short-term glycemic control was comparable after SG and RYGB. An improved lipid profile was noted after RYGB in patients with abnormal preoperative values.     

Lap band outcomes from 19,221 patients across centers and over a decade within the state of New York

Introduction

We sought to determine the rate of revision and explant of the laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) over a ten-year period in the state of New York.

Methods

Following IRB approval, the SPARCS administrative database was used to identify LAGB placement from 2004 to 2010. We tracked patients who underwent band placement with subsequent removal/revision, followed by conversion to either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYBG) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) between 2004 and 2013. McNemar test and Chi-square test were used to compare complications between primary procedure and subsequent revision and to compare complication rates and mortality rates, respectively. Log-rank test was used to assess patient characteristics and comorbidities. p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

During a 7-year period, there were 19,221 records of LAGB placements and 6567 records of revisions or removal. We were able to follow up 3158 (16.43 %) who subsequently underwent a band removal or revision over the course of this period. An additional 3606 patients had no records in the state of New York following the procedure, thus making the rate of revision 20.22 %. Initial revision procedures were coded as band removal in 32.77 % (n = 1035), band revision in 30.53 % (n = 964), band removal and replacement in 19.09 % (n = 603), removal and conversion to SG in 5.64 % (n = 178), or removal and conversion to RYGB in 11.97 % (n = 378). From the 3158 patients, 2515 (79.64 %) required only one revision. Six hundred and forty-three patients underwent two or more revisions. Thirty-one out of 3158 (0.0098 %) patients had complications at their initial operation, but 919 (29.1 %) had complications during revision (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Over a 7-year period, at least 20.22 % of LAGB required removal or revision. Based on all case numbers, total revision rate may be as high as 34.2 %. Although the band is believed to be a reversible procedure, revisional procedures are significantly more morbid than the initial procedure.

     

Revisional weight loss surgery after failed laparoscopic gastric banding: an institutional experience

Background

Increasing experience with laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has demonstrated a high rate of complications and inadequate weight loss. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) have been reported to be safe and effective in selected patients. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the incidence and outcomes of revisional weight loss surgery (RWLS) after laparoscopic gastric banding at our institution.

Methods

From June 2006 to February 2013, all patients who underwent LAGB and those who required revision were retrospectively analyzed. All procedures were performed by two surgeons with extensive experience in bariatric surgery. Parametric data are presented as mean ± SD; nonparametric data are presented as median and interquartile range (IQR).

Results

During the study period, 256 patients underwent LAGB. A total of 111 patients (43 %) required reoperation. Sixty-one patients (56 women, age = 43.7 ± 12 years) with a BMI of 45.4 ± 6 kg/m² successfully underwent RWLS (53 RYGB, 8 LSG). Indications for RWLS included dysphagia (40 patients, 63 %), inadequate weight loss (17 patients, 27 %), GERD (2 patients, 3 %), gastric prolapse (2 patients, 3 %), and needle phobia (1 patient, 2 %). Two required conversion to an open RYGB due to extensive adhesions. RWLS was undertaken approximately 36.3 [25–45] months after LAGB. Removal of the gastric band and the RWLS were performed in 15 patients with an interval of 3 [1.5–7] months between procedures. Median operative time was 165 [142–184] min. Median hospital length of stay was 2 [2–3] days. Early complications occurred in 11 patients (18 %), including 4 anastomotic leaks. Twelve patients (20 %) presented with late complications requiring intervention. There was one death. At a median follow-up of 12.4 months, excess weight loss was 47.5 ± 27 %, and 48 % of patients achieved a BMI < 33.

Conclusion

LAGB is associated with a high incidence of reoperation. Reoperative weight loss surgery can be performed in selected patients with a higher rate of complications than primary surgery. Good short-term weight loss outcomes can be achieved.     

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy and Gastric Bypass for The Aging Population

Background

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are the two most common bariatric surgeries for treating morbid obesity. The purpose of this study is to determine differences in outcomes from RYGB or SG between patients ages?≥?60 years and?<?60 years.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent RYGB and SG at our institution from 01/2008 to 05/2012 was conducted. Forty patients from each group (≥60 years and?<?60 years) were matched based on gender, body mass index (BMI), co-morbidities, and type of bariatric surgery performed, and their charts were reviewed up to 1 year post-operatively. Primary end points measured were mean length of stay, operative time, incidence of complications, and readmissions in the first post-operative year. A secondary end point measured was percent total weight loss (%TWL) and excess weight loss (%EWL).

Results

There were no significant differences between group?<?60 and group?≥?60 in operative time (210 vs. 229 min; p?=?0.177), in-hospital post-operative complication rates (2.5 vs. 5 %; p?=?1.0), long-term complication rates (2.5 vs. 10 %; p?=?0.359), and 30-day readmission rates (2.5 vs. 12.5 %; p?=?0.2). Patients in group?<?60 had shorter lengths of stay (2.2 vs. 2.7 days; p?=?0.031), but this difference is not clinically significant. Both groups achieved similar %TWL (21.4 vs. 20.5 %; p?=?0.711) and %EWL (50.6 vs. 50.7 %; p?=?0.986).

Conclusions

Advanced age (≥60 years) is not a significant predictor of a worse outcome for SG and RYGB.

     

Conversion of Sleeve Gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Introduction

A subset of patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) require eventual conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) due to complications from SG or to enhance weight loss. The aim of this study is to characterize the indications for conversion and perioperative outcomes in a large cohort of these patients at a single institution.

Methods

Patients who underwent revisional surgery to convert SG to RYGB at our institution from January 2008 through January 2017 were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

Eighty-nine patients with previous SG underwent conversion to RYGB as part of a planned two-stage approach to gastric bypass (n?=?36), for weight recidivism (n?=?11), or for complications related to SG (n?=?42). Complications from SG that warranted conversion included refractory GERD (40.5%), sleeve stenosis (31.0%), gastrocutaneous (16.7%), or gastropleural (7.1%) fistula, and gastric torsion (4.1%). The mean (SD) age was 47.2 years (11.4 years) and median BMI at the time of revision was 43.2 kg/m². A laparoscopic approach was successfully completed in 76 patients (85.4%), with an additional of four completed robotically (4.5%). The median length of stay was 3 days. Twenty-eight patients (31.5%) had complications which included surgical site infection (20.2%), re-operation (6.7%), anastomotic stricture (3.4%), and one pulmonary embolism. There were no mortalities with a median follow-up of 15 months.

Conclusions

Conversion of SG to RYGB is safe and technically feasible when performed for complications of SG or to enhance weight loss. This operation can be successfully performed laparoscopically with a low rate of conversion and reasonable complication profile.