One Year After Laparoscopic “Tight” Sleeve Gastrectomy: Technique and Outcome

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is currently gaining ground as a new option for the treatment of morbid obesity. The main advantages of this procedure are less postoperative food restrictions, no vomiting, and absence of late complications due to the lack of foreign implants. The aim of this study is to present our experience with this new bariatric technique. METHODS: Ninety three obese patients (65 females and 28 males) who underwent LSG between September 2005 and September 2007 were studied in terms of postoperative complications and weight loss. RESULTS: Mean age was 38.37 +/- 10.81 years (range 19-69) and mean preoperative weight and body mass index (BMI) were 139.12 +/- 24.03 kg (range 100-210) and 46.86 +/- 6.48 kg/m(2) (range 37-66), respectively. Mean follow-up was 12.51 +/- 4.15 months (range 3-24). There were no mortalities, but there were four major and four minor postoperative complications. The mean postoperative excess weight loss (EWL) was 58.32 +/- 16.54%, while mean BMI dropped to 32.98 +/- 6.54 kg/m(2). Mean EWL 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after the operation was 31%, 53%, 67%, and 72%, respectively. Superobese patients (BMI > 50 kg/m(2)) lost less weight. CONCLUSION: In the short term, LSG is a safe and highly effective bariatric operation more suitable for intermediate morbidly obese patients with BMI between 40 and 50 kg/m(2).     

Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty,Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy,and Laparoscopic Band for Weight Loss: How Do They Compare?

Background

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a novel endobariatric procedure. Initial studies demonstrated an association of ESG with weight loss and improvement of obesity-related comorbidities. Our aim was to compare ESG to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB).

Methods

We included 278 obese (BMI > 30) patients who underwent ESG (n = 91), LSG (n = 120), or LAGB (n = 67) at our tertiary care academic center. Primary outcome was percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included adverse events (AE), length of stay (LOS), and readmission rate.

Results

At 12-month follow-up, LSG achieved the greatest %TBWL compared to LAGB and ESG (29.28 vs 13.30 vs 17.57%, respectively; p < 0.001). However, ESG had a significantly lower rate of morbidity when compared to LSG or LAGB (p = 0.01). The LOS was significantly less for ESG compared to LSG or LAGB (0.34 ± 0.73 vs 3.09 ± 1.47 vs 1.66 ± 3.07 days, respectively; p < 0.01). Readmission rates were not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.72).

Conclusion

Although LSG is the most effective option for weight loss, ESG is a safe and feasible endobariatric option associated with low morbidity and short LOS in select patients.

     

Is There a Place for Pigtail Drains in the Management of Gastric Leaks After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy?

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has a specific morbidity profile in which gastric leak (GL) is the main complication. With a view to defining a standardized protocol for GL management, the present retrospective study sought to describe the clinical patterns of post-LSG GL and treatment of the latter in our university medical center. From July 2004 to December 2010, 25 patients were included. GL was described in terms of clinical presentation, time to onset, and location in the staple line. Treatment of GL with pharmacologic, radiologic, endoscopic, and/or surgical procedures was always validated by a multidisciplinary care team. “Treatment success” was defined as the absence of contrast agent leakage on CT and endoscopy after removal of covered metallic stent or pigtail drains. Systemic inflammation and peritonitis were the main signs for early-onset GL (56%), whereas pulmonary symptoms and intra-abdominal abscesses revealed delayed-onset GL (44%). Surgery was always performed for early-onset GL. In the total study population, the median number of endoscopic procedures was five (range, 1–11) per patient, of covered SEMS was three (range, 1–8), and of pigtail drains was three (range, 1–4). Nine (36%) patients presented endoscopic-related complications. Four (16%) patients with treatment failure underwent radical surgery. The mortality rate was 4% (n=1). The management of post-LSG GL is challenging. Surgery was always performed for early-onset GL, whereas treatment of delayed-onset GL was based on endoscopy. Pigtail drains required fewer procedures per patient, were better tolerated, and had lower morbidity–mortality than covered SEMS.     

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for the Treatment of Morbid Obesity. A Prospective Study with 5 Years of Follow-Up

Background

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is one of the most widely used bariatric procedures today, and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is becoming increasingly popular. The aim of this study was to compare mid-term results of both procedures.

Methods

From January 2008 to December 2008, 117 obese patients were assigned by patient choice after informed consent to either a LRYGB procedure (n?=?75) or a LSG procedure (n?=?42). We determined operative time, length of stay, morbidity, comorbidity outcomes, failures, and excess weight loss at 5 years.

Results

Both groups were comparable in demographic characteristics and comorbidities at baseline. No significant statistical differences were found in length of stay and early major morbidity, but mean operative time was shorter in LSG group, p?p?>?0.05. Five years after surgery, the percentage of excess weight loss was similar in both groups (69.8 % for LRYGB and 67.3 % for LSG, p?>?0.05). Failures were more common for LSG group, 22.2 versus 12.7 % for LRYGB group, but this difference was not significant, p?>?0.05.

Conclusions

Both techniques are comparable regarding safety and effectiveness after 5 years of follow-up, so not one procedure is clearly superior to the other.     

From bariatric to metabolic surgery: Looking for a “disease modifier” surgery for type 2 diabetes

In this review the recent evolution of the comprehension of clinical and metabolic consequences of bariatric surgery is depicted. At the beginning bariatric surgery aim was a significant and durable weight loss. Later on, it became evident that bariatric surgery was associated with metabolic changes, activated by unknown pathways, partially or totally independent of weight loss. Paradigm of this "metabolic" surgery is its effects on type 2 diabetes mellitus(T2DM). In morbid obese subjects it was observed a dramatic metabolic response leading to decrease blood glucose, till diabetes remission, before the achievement of clinically significant weight loss, opening the avenue to search for putative antidiabetic "intestinal" factors. Both proximal duodenal(still unknown) and distal(GLP1) signals have been suggested as hormonal effectors of surgery on blood glucose decrease. Despite these findings T2 DM remission was never considered a primary indication for bariatric surgery but only a secondary one. Recently T2 DM remission in obese subjects with body mass index(BMI) greater than 35 has become a primary aim for surgery. This change supports the idea that "metabolic surgery" definition could more appropriate than bariatric, allowing to explore the possibility that metabolic surgery could represent a "disease modifier" for T2 DM. Therefore, several patients have undergone surgery with a primary aim of a definitive cure of T2 DM and today this surgery can be proposed as an alternative therapy. How much surgery can be considered truly metabolic is still unknown. To be truly "metabolic" it should be demonstrated that surgery could cause T2 DM remission not only in subjects with BMI 35 but also with BMI 35 or even 30. Available evidence on this topic is discussed in this mini-review.     

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Compared to a Multidisciplinary Weight Loss Program for Obesity—Effects on Body Composition and Protein Status

Background

Optimal obesity therapy is a matter of debate. Besides weight reduction, other criteria such as safety and nutritional status are of relevance. Therefore, we compared a favored surgical intervention with the most effective conservative treatment regarding anthropometry and nutritional status.

Methods

Fifty-four obese patients were included who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG, n?=?27) or a 52-week multidisciplinary intervention program (MIP, n?=?27) for weight loss. Body weight, body composition assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis, and serum protein levels were measured before and within 12 months after intervention.

Results

After 1 year of observation, excess weight loss was more pronounced following LSG (65 %) compared to MIP (38 %, p?<?0.001). In both groups, body fat was clearly reduced, but a higher reduction occurred in the LSG group. However, protein status deteriorated particularly in the LSG group. Within 1 year, body cell mass declined from 37.1 to 26.9 kg in the LSG group, but only from 35.7 to 32.2 kg in the MIP group. This resulted in an increased mean extracellular mass/body cell mass ratio (1.42 versus 1.00, p?<?0.001), in a decreased mean phase angle (4.4° versus 6.6°, p?<?0.001), and in a lower prealbumin level in serum (p?<?0.02) in the LSG group compared to the MIP group.

Conclusions

LSG, compared to MIP, was more effective regarding excess weight loss and body fat loss within 1 year, however, induced more pronounced muscle mass and protein loss, possibly requiring particular interventions such as exercise or protein supplements.     

The Use of Seamguard® to Buttress the Suture Repair of a Staple Line Leak Following Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass for Obesity

Anastomotic and staple line leak following laparoscopic gastric bypass are recognised complications with significant mortality and morbidity. Several techniques have been described to reduce the incidence of staple line leaks, including reinforcement of staple lines using omental wraps, fibrin glue, and Peristrips and Seamguard. Using a similar principle, we describe a case report of the successful use of a Seamguard buttress in the repair of a staple line leak at the proximal gastric pouch following laparoscopic gastric bypass. The repair of the leak was confirmed by gastrogaffin contrast study as well as clinically as the patient progressed well in the postoperative period. Ten months following surgery, her weight had reduced from 125 kg (BMI 47.6 kg/m(2)) to 82.4 kg (BMI of 31.4 kg/m(2)). We suggest that surgeons facing similar problems may choose to employ this novel technique.     

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure for failed laparoscopic gastric banding with a “2-step approach”: a multicenter study

BackgroundLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been proposed as an alternative revisional procedure for failed/complicated gastric banding. This is a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database of revisional LSG after band removal for insufficient weight loss and/or band-related complications, using a 2-step approach. The outcomes were compared with a control group of primary LSG. The study was conducted at a university hospital (Sapienza University of Rome-Polo Pontino, Icot, Latina, Italy) and 2 community general hospitals (Hospital Andosilla Civita Castellana, Viterbo, Italy and Hospital Villa D'Agri, Potenza, Italy).MethodsA total of 76 revisional LSG procedures was recorded; a control group of 279 LSG patients was selected. The primary endpoint was to compare the perioperative complication rate between the revisional versus the control group. Secondary endpoints were operative time, conversion rate, postoperative length of stay and percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) at 6, 12, and 24 months.ResultsThe indications for band removal were inadequate weight loss (47 patients), slippage (10 patients), erosion (7 patients), and pouch dilation (12 patients). All procedures were completed laparoscopically. The median operative time was 78 minutes for the revision LSG and 65 minutes for the control LSG (P<.05). In the revision group, the overall complication rate was 17.1%, and the median postoperative length of stay was 4 days; in the control group, the overall complication rate was 10.7%, and the median postoperative length of stay was 3. No complications requiring reoperation or readmission occurred in the revision group. In the control group, there were 5 cases of major complications. All the patients completed the follow-up. A total of 56 patients in the revision group and 184 patients in the control group were followed-up for at least 24 months. The %EWL at 6, 12, and 24 months was 46.5%, 66.4%, and 78.5%, respectively, in the revision group, and 49.8%, 78.2%, and 78%, respectively, in the control group.ConclusionResults confirmed that LSG, performed in 2 steps, is an effective revision procedure for failed or complicated laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding with good perioperative outcomes and 2-year weight loss.     

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy is Superior to Endoscopic Intragastric Balloon as a First Stage Procedure for Super-Obese Patients (BMI ≥50)

The treatment of patients with a BMI ≥50 kg/m² is still controversial. Given the many co-morbidities and oftentimes fragile health of super-obese patients, surgeons experienced in bariatrics often advocate a less invasive first stage operation for these patients. This allows them enough weight loss to support a more major second-stage operation such as a gastric bypass or a biliopancreatic diversion / duodenal switch. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and the BioEnterics intragastric balloon (BIB) as a first-stage procedure for effective initial weight loss before more definitive surgery. Methods: 20 patients (13 males and 7 females) who underwent LSG from May 2001 to December 2002 were compared with 57 patients (33 males and 24 females) obtained as historical controls from two large series who underwent BIB. Patients were evaluated at 6 months in terms of: weight, BMI, percent of excess weight loss (%EWL) and change in BMI. Results: There were no differences between groups for age, weight and BMI. There were no complications for patients under-going the LSG. For patients undergoing BIB, 4 patients (7%) had the balloon removed due to intolerance. The mean weight loss for patients undergoing LSG and BIB at 6 months was 45.5 vs 22.3 kg respectively, and the %EWL was 35 for LSG vs 24 for BIB. BMI decreased respectively from 69 to 53 for the LSG group and from 59 to 51 for the BIB group. Weight loss decreased co-morbidities in 90% of patients after both procedures. Conclusion: Patients undergoing a LSG showed a faster and greater weight loss than those using a BIB at 6 months. Moreover, LSG is a safe procedure, with reproducible results, in contrast to the BIB which was tolerated by 93% of patients. The results indicate that both mean weight loss and %EWL were better in the LSG group, and that BMI decreased substantially more in the LSG group as well. Although the BIB procedure shows efficacy in reducing weight, the LSG group does so faster and to a greater amount, thus suggesting that this may be a superior procedure as a first stage for super-obesity.