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.     

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.     

Revisional bariatric surgery at a single institution

Background

Bariatric surgery, although safe, can have long-term complications that require revision. Our series illustrates the spectrum of primary procedures, indications for surgery, and strategies for revision.

Methods

The study was a retrospective chart review. Sixty-three patients were identified. Of specific interest were complications and percentage of excess weight loss (EWL) during the follow-up period.

Results

Eighteen patients had a previous vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), 26 had a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), 18 had a laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), and 1 had a jejunal-ileal bypass. All VBG patients were revised to RYGB. Seventeen RYGB patients were revised with RYGB. Eight LAGB patients were revised with RYGB. Eight RYGB patients had placement of LAGB. Two LAGB patients were revised with LAGB because of a slipped band. Eight LAGB patients had the band removed. The morbidity rate was 30% with a major morbidity rate of 11%. There were 2 leaks, neither required reoperation. Other major complications included 3 pneumonias, 2 reoperations, and 2 intra-abdominal abscesses. There were no mortalities. In the 15 patients who had conversion of VBG to RYGB, the mean EWL was 50%, with 60% of patients achieving more than 50% EWL. In the 10 patients who had revision of their RYGB, the mean EWL was 51%, with 60% of patients achieving more than 50%. In the 6 patients who had revision of LAGB to RYGB, the mean EWL was 39%, with 33% of patients achieving more than 50% EWL. In the 8 patients who had LAGB after RYGB the mean EWL was −2%, with 0% of patients achieving more than 50%.

Conclusions

Revisional surgery is effective, although complication rates are higher than primary bariatric surgery. The type of initial and revisional procedure affects EWL.     

A one-step conversion from gastric banding to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is as safe as a two-step conversion: A comparative analysis of 885 patients

Aims: To achieve additional weight loss or to resolve band-related problems, a laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) can be converted to a laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). There is limited data on the feasibility and safety of routinely performing a single-step conversion. We assessed the efficacy of this revisional approach in a large cohort of patients operated in a high-volume bariatric institution.

Methods: Between October 2004 and December 2015, a total of 885 patients who underwent LAGB removal with RYGB were identified from a prospectively collected database. In all cases, a single-stage conversion procedure was planned. The feasibility of this approach and peri-operative outcomes of these patients were evaluated and analyzed.

Results: A single-step approach was successfully achieved in 738 (83.4%) of the 885 patients. During the study period, there was a significant increase in performing the conversion from LAGB to RYGB single-staged. No mortality or anastomotic leakage was observed in both groups. Only 45 patients (5.1%) had a 30-d complication: most commonly hemorrhage (N?=?20/45), with no significant difference between the groups.

Conclusion: Converting a LAGB to RYGB can be performed with a very low morbidity and zero-mortality in a high-volume revisional bariatric center. With increasing experience and full standardization of the conversion, the vast majority of operations can be performed as a single-stage procedure. Only a migrated band remains a formal contraindication for a one-step approach.     

High failure rate of the laparoscopic-adjustable gastric band as a primary bariatric procedure

BackgroundDeterminants of success of a bariatric procedure are many but paramount is the ability to durably produce significant and reliable weight loss. We sought to determine the primary success of the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) by defining failure as clinical weight loss failure with an intact band (excess weight loss [EWL]<20%) or band removal (terminal removal or conversion to a secondary bariatric procedure).MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent an LAGB as a primary bariatric procedure between January 2003 and December 2007. Data collected included body mass index (BMI), weight, postoperative follow-up length, EWL, and adjustment number, as well as complications of the LAGB.ResultsSixteen of 120 patients had the band removed. Nine were terminally removed for unmanageable symptoms, and 7 were converted to an alternative bariatric procedure. The average follow-up for the 104 patients with an intact band was 4.8 years. The average EWL for successful intact bands was 44.9±19.4%; however, an additional 35.6% of patients had an EWL<20%. Patients with an EWL<20% had a significantly higher preoperative BMI and fewer band adjustments. In total, 44% of patients had band failure because of clinical weight loss failure (31%) or eventual band removal (13%).ConclusionThis study finds that the LAGB failed as a primary bariatric procedure for 44% of patients because of either inadequate weight loss or adequate weight loss with unmanageable symptoms. This suggests that the LAGB should be abandoned as a primary bariatric procedure for the majority of morbidly obese patients because of its high failure rate.     

Revisional surgery after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding

BackgroundLaparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is a restrictive procedure that achieves weight loss without anatomic alteration. However, morbidity requiring surgical reintervention can occur.MethodsA retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of primary LAGB and revisional surgery after failed LAGB was performed from January 2001 to October 2006 at an academic private clinic.ResultsOf 2467 bariatric procedures, primary LAGB was performed in 242 patients. A total of 53 revisional procedures were performed in 40 patients and 16 in 9 patients who were referred from other centers after failed primary LAGB. The mean follow-up was 45.7 ± 15.8 months (range 9.5–70). The early surgical reintervention rate was 6.1%. The revisional procedures included band removal only in 27 (39%), band removal and conversion to sleeve gastrectomy in 10 (14.5%), band removal and conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in 5 (7.2%), band repositioning in 7 (10%), device-related reintervention in 6 (8.7%), subsequent conversion to another bariatric procedure in 3 (4.3%), and other procedures in 11 (15.9%). Of the 49 patients, 21 (43%) presented with acute band-related morbidity. A total of 55 procedures (96.5%), amenable to minimal invasive surgery, excluding wound and port site-related procedures, were completed laparoscopically. The major early and late complication rate was 4.1% and 2%, respectively.ConclusionPrimary LAGB was associated with acceptable major early complication and surgical reintervention rates. However, a late surgical reintervention rate of 15.2% was observed. Band removal was required in 14% of our primary LAGB patients because of band-related morbidity, with conversion to another bariatric procedure in 6.2%. Our results have shown that LAGB can be associated with significant morbidity and that revisional surgery is common.     

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Background In the United States, the most frequently performed bariatric procedure is the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Worldwide, the most common operation performed is the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). The expanding use of LAGB is probably driven by the encouraging data on its safety and effectiveness, in contrast to the disappointing morbidity and mortality rates reported for RYGB. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of LAGB versus RYGB at a single institution. Methods Between November 2000 and July 2004, 590 bariatric procedures were performed. Of these, 120 patients (20%) had laparoscopic RYGB and 470 patients (80%) had LAGB. A retrospective review was performed. Results In the LAGB group, 376 patients (80%) were female, and the mean age was 41 years (range, 17–65). In the RYGB group, 110 patients (91%) were female, and the mean age was 41 years (range, 20–61). Preoperative body mass index was 47 ± 8 and 46 ± 5, respectively (p = not significant). Operative time and hospitalization were significantly shorter in LAGB patients (p < 0.001). Complications and the need for reoperation were comparable in both groups. Weight loss at 12, 18, 24, and 36 months for LAGB and RYGB was 39 ± 21 versus 65 ± 13, 39 ± 20 versus 62 ± 17, 45 ± 25 versus 67 ± 8, and 55 ± 20 versus 63 ± 9, respectively. Conclusions The current study demonstrates that LAGB is a simpler, less invasive, and safer procedure than RYGB. Although mean percentage excess body weight loss (%EBWL) in RYGB patients increased rapidly during the first postoperative year, it remained nearly unchanged at 3 years. In contrast, in LAGB patients weight loss was slower but steady, achieving satisfactory %EBWL at 3 years. Therefore, we believe that LAGB should be considered the initial approach since it is safer than RYGB and is very effective at achieving weight loss.     

Laparoscopic revisional surgery after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy

BackgroundFailure of primary bariatric surgery is frequently due to weight recidivism, intractable gastric reflux, gastrojejunal strictures, fistulas, and malnutrition. Of these patients, 10–60% will undergo reoperative bariatric surgery, depending on the primary procedure performed. Open reoperative approaches for revision to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) have traditionally been advocated secondary to the perceived difficulty and safety with laparoscopic techniques. Few studies have addressed revisions after RYGB. The aim of the present study was to provide our experience regarding the safety, efficacy, and weight loss results of laparoscopic revisional surgery after previous RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy procedures.MethodsA retrospective analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery for complications after previous RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy from November 2005 to May 2007 was performed. Technical revisions included isolation and transection of gastrogastric fistulas with partial gastrectomy, sleeve gastrectomy conversion to RYGB, and revision of RYGB. The data collected included the pre- and postoperative body mass index, operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and intraoperative and postoperative complications.ResultsA total of 26 patients underwent laparoscopic revisional surgery. The primary operations had consisted of RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy. The complications from primary operations included gastrogastric fistulas, refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease, weight recidivism, and gastric outlet obstruction. The mean prerevision body mass index was 42 ± 10 kg/m². The average follow-up was 240 days (range 11–476). The average body mass index during follow-up was 37 ± 8 kg/m². Laparoscopic revision was successful in all but 1 patient, who required conversion to laparotomy for staple line leak. The average operating room time and estimated blood loss was 131 ± 66 minutes and 70 mL, respectively. The average hospital stay was 6 days. Three patients required surgical exploration for hemorrhage, staple line leak, and an incarcerated hernia. The overall complication rate was 23%, with a major complication rate of 11.5%. No patients died.ConclusionLaparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery after previous RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy is technically challenging but compared well in safety and efficacy with the results from open revisional procedures. Intraoperative endoscopy is a key component in performing these procedures.     

What happens after gastric band removal without additional bariatric surgery?

BackgroundThe laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is widely used for the treatment of morbid obesity. Many patients benefit from this procedure initially, but experience complications after a few years. The treatment for many complications is revisional bariatric surgery. A number of patients, however, request only band removal without secondary bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the perioperative and medium term outcomes of patients who had their LAGB removed without secondary bariatric surgery.MethodsPatients were retrospectively selected using a prospectively collected database. The LAGB had to be in situ for at least 1 year, and minimum postoperative follow-up had to be 12 months.ResultsThirty-eight patients who had their LAGB laparoscopically removed between 2000 and 2010 were included. Median follow-up after LAGB removal was 3.0 (1.4 to 8.9) years. Only 2 complications (5%) and no mortality occurred perioperatively. In the 21 patients who did not undergo additional bariatric surgery, the median excess weight loss (EWL) decreased from 41% (–12% to –100%) at band removal to 9% (–10% to 90%), 0% (–20% to 78%), and –11% (–12% to 56%) after 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. Percentage weight loss (%WL) was 17% (–54% to –5%), 4% (–47% to –9%), 0% (–41% to 11%), and –5% (–29% to 9%) after these same time intervals, respectively.After a median 2.1 (.5 to 9.9) years, 17 patients underwent either a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (14 patients) or a Scopinaro (3 patients) all because of weight regain. The current EWL and %WL in these patients is 67% (24% to 113%) and 30% (12% to 53%), respectively compared with –11% (–33% to 57%) and –4% (–14% to 34%) in patients without a secondary bariatric procedure (P< .001).ConclusionPatients who have their LAGB removed are guaranteed to suffer from weight regain. It is inadvisable to only remove the LAGB without performing an additional bariatric procedure when deemed technically feasible and safe. In this study, no patient was able to maintain the weight loss achieved with the LAGB after its removal.     

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.     

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.     

Long-Term Results of Bariatric Restrictive Procedures: A Prospective Study

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and vertical-banded gastroplasty (VBG) are surgical treatment modalities for morbid obesity. This prospective study describes the long-term results of LAGB and VBG. One hundred patients were included in the study. Fifty patients underwent LAGB and 50 patients, open VBG. Study parameters were weight loss, changes in obesity-related comorbidities, long-term complications, re-operations including conversions to other bariatric procedures and laboratory parameters including vitamin status. From 91 patients (91%), data were obtained with a mean follow-up duration of 84 months (7 years). Weight loss [percent excess weight loss (EWL)] was significantly more after VBG compared with LAGB, 66% versus 54%, respectively. All comorbidities significantly decreased in both groups. Long-term complications after VBG were mainly staple line disruption (54%) and incisional hernia (27%). After LAGB, the most frequent complications were pouch dilatation (21%) and anterior slippage (17%). Major re-operations after VBG were performed in 60% of patients. All re-operations following were conversions to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). In the LAGB group, 33% of patients had a refixation or replacement of the band, and 11% underwent conversion to another bariatric procedure. There were no significant differences in weight loss between patients with or without re-interventions. No vitamin deficiencies were present after 7 years, although supplement usage was inconsistent. This long-term follow-up study confirms the high occurrence of late complications after restrictive bariatric surgery. The failure rate of 65% after VBG is too high, and this procedure is not performed anymore in our institution. The re-operation rate after LAGB is decreasing as a result of new techniques and materials. Results of the re-operations are good with sustained weight loss and reduction in comorbidities. However, in order to achieve these results, a durable and complete follow-up after restrictive procedures is imperative.     

Laparoscopic adjustable banded roux-en-y gastric bypass as a <Emphasis Type="Italic">primary</Emphasis> procedure for the super-super-obese (body mass index > 60 kg/m<Superscript>2</Superscript>)

Background  

Currently, there is no consensus opinion regarding the optimal procedure of choice in super-super-morbid obesity (Body mass index, BMI > 60 kg/m2). Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is associated with failure to achieve or maintain 50% excess weight loss (EWL) or BMI < 35 in approximately 15% of patients. Also, percent EWL is significantly less after 1-year in the super-super-obese group as compared with the less obese group and many patients are still technically considered to be obese (lowest post-surgical BMI > 35) following RYGB surgery in this group. The addition of adjustable gastric band (AGB) to RYGB has been reported as a revisional procedure but this combined bariatric procedure has not been explored as a primary operation.     

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after successful weight loss with a laparoscopic adjustable gastric band: rationales and early outcomes in patients of body mass index<35 kg/m2

BackgroundLaparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has a number of well-established acute and chronic issues that can require revisional surgical procedures. There is no existing data to evaluate conversion of band patients with body mass index (BMI)<35 kg/m² from LAGB to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). This study aims to report on the indications for and the safety profile of conversion of the LAGB to RYGB in patients with BMI<35 kg/m².MethodsA review of data from 200 consecutive conversions of LAGB to RYGB was conducted. Fifty-two patients whose BMI was<35 kg/m² were included in this analysis. Indications for conversion, technical details, early morbidity, length of hospital stay, and weight loss data were assessed.ResultsLaparoscopic conversion to RYGB was performed in 100% of patients. The median BMI pre-RYGB was 32.8 kg/m². The most common indication for surgery was weight regain after removal of LAGB (28.8%). There was no mortality. Early morbidity was seen in 25% of patients; the most common complication was stricture of the gastrojejunal anastomosis (9 patients).ConclusionMorbidity resulting from conversion of LAGB to RYGB in patients with BMI <35 kg/m² is similar to that seen in the BMI>35 kg/m² population. The procedure is technically challenging and morbidity rates are higher than those reported for surgically ‘naïve’ patients. It is recommended that this procedure be undertaken by appropriately trained surgeons in high-volume bariatric centers to optimize safety and outcomes.     

Conversion from one-anastomosis gastric bypass to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: when and why—a single-center experience of all consecutive OAGB procedures

BackgroundOne-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a well-established treatment method in patients with morbid obesity. Its long-term impact on de novo reflux, anastomotic complications, and malnutrition needs further evaluation. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is a technically feasible procedure in revisional bariatric surgery. This study presents our institutional data on conversion from OAGB to RYGB.ObjectiveTo determine the reasons for conversion, preoperative endoscopic findings, and feasibility of revisional bariatric surgery after OAGB.SettingUniversity hospital in AustriaMethodsRetrospective analysis of a prospectively fed database. All patients undergoing OAGB between January 2012 and December 2019 were included. Screening was carried out for all patients needing conversion to RYGB. Percent total weight loss, percent excess weight loss, time to conversion, postoperative complications, and reasons for conversion were assessed.ResultsEighty-two of 1,025 patients who underwent OAGB were converted laparoscopically to RYGB. Seven patients were converted early because of anastomotic/gastric tube leakage. Median time to late conversion was 29.1 ± 24.3 months, mean percent excess weight loss was 86.6% ± 33.1% and percent total weight loss was 35.1% ± 13.5%. Forty-two patients were converted because of reflux, 11 because of persistent marginal ulcers, 10 because of anastomotic stenosis, 9 because of malnutrition, and 3 because of weight regain. Seven patients showed Barrett’s metaplasia in biopsies at the gastroesophageal junction before conversion.ConclusionLaparoscopic conversion from OAGB to RYGB is technically feasible with a moderate rate of postoperative complications. Severe (bile) reflux is a serious long-term complication after OAGB, with 4.1% of patients needing conversion to RYGB. Endoscopy after OAGB in patients showing clinical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease is strongly advised to detect underlying pathologic changes.     

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.     

Long-term results after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a mean fourteen year follow-up study

BackgroundFor over a decade, the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) was 1 of the most performed bariatric procedures in Europe. This study is a retrospective analysis with prospectively collected data of the experience in 1 specialized Dutch center with the adjustable gastric band over 14 years.MethodsBetween 1995 and 2003, 201 patients underwent an LAGB for morbid obesity in our hospital. Data on preoperative clinical characteristic, postoperative outcome and weight loss patterns, and co-morbidities for up to 18 years are presented and evaluated using the Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System (BAROS).ResultsAverage follow-up was 13.6 (±2.0) years (163 mo) and 99% of patients with complete follow-up. Two thirds of patients reached an excess weight loss (EWL)>50% at some point after LAGB placement. However, due to insufficient weight loss or complications in 53% of patients, the LAGB had to be removed or converted to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Additionally, half of the remaining patients had disappointing results according to the BAROS score. In total, less than one quarter (22%) of patients had a functioning band with a good result after the follow-up period. Although initially the number of patients experiencing co-morbidities was reduced, most of them returned and a large number of patients developed new co-morbidities. Complications, other than weight regain, were numerous as 47% of patients experienced at least 1. In total, 204 reoperations were performed in 137 (68%) patients. Furthermore, patients who were lost to follow-up did almost twice as bad in terms of EWL compared to patients who had regular follow-up.ConclusionMorbid obesity is a chronic disease that can be resolved with bariatric surgery. One of the treatment options is the LAGB, which in the short term shows good results in terms of EWL and co-morbidity reduction. In the long term, however, EWL and co-morbidity reduction are disappointing, and the LAGB does not seem to live up to expectations. Besides the decrease in EWL over time, the number of reoperations required is alarming. In total, less than a quarter of patients still had a functioning band after a mean 14 years of follow-up.     

Sleeve gastrectomy as revisional procedure for failed gastric banding or gastroplasty

BackgroundLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is considered an effective multipurpose operation for morbid obesity, although long-term results are still lacking. Also, the best procedure to be offered in the case of failed restrictive procedures is still debated. We here reported our results of LSG as a revisional procedure for inadequate weight loss and/or complications after adjustable gastric banding or gastroplasty.MethodsSince April 2005, 57 patients (20 men and 37 women), with a mean age of 49.9 ± 11.9 years, underwent revisional LSG, 52 after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding/adjustable gastric banding and 5 after vertical banded gastroplasty at our institution. The mean interval from the primary procedure to LSG was 7.54 ± 4.8 years. The LSG was created using a 34F bougie with an endostapler, after removing the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band or the anterior portion of the band in those who had undergone vertical banded gastroplasty. An upper gastrointestinal contrast study was performed within 3 days after surgery and, if the findings were negative, a soft diet was promptly started.ResultsA total of 41 patients had undergone concurrent band removal and LSG and 16 had undergone band removal followed by an interval LSG. Three cases required conversion to open surgery because of a large incisional hernia. The mean operative time was 120 minutes (range 90–180). One patient died of multiple organ failure from septic shock. Three patients (5.7%) developed a perigastric hematoma, 3 (5.7%) had leaks, and 1 had mid-gastric short stenosis. The median hospital stay was 5 days. The mean body mass index at revisional LSG was 45.7 ± 10.8 kg/m² and had decreased to 39 ± 8.5 kg/m² after 2 years, with a mean percentage of the estimated excess body mass index lost of 41.6% ± 24.4%. Two patients required a duodenal switch for insufficient weight loss.ConclusionLSG seems to be effective as revisional procedure for failed LAGB/vertical banded gastroplasty, although with greater complication rates than the primary procedures. Larger series and longer follow-up are needed to confirm these promising results.     

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 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.