Safety of adjustable gastric band conversion surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the leak rate in 1- and 2-stage procedures

BackgroundLaparoscopic adjustable gastric banding has been a popular bariatric surgery in the United States since the early 2000s. Over the years, various long-term complications have prompted removal of these devices. To avoid subsequent weight gain, explanation of the gastric band is often followed by concomitant or staged conversion to another bariatric procedure.ObjectiveIt is our goal to evaluate the relative leak rate in 1- versus 2-stage adjustable gastric band conversion surgery.SettingPrivate teaching hospital, United States.MethodsA search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases to evaluate literature regarding adjustable gastric band conversion procedures. After identification of publications that directly compared 1- and 2-stage laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding conversions, the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to determine if they would be used in our meta-analysis. The risk ratio for leak in 1- versus 2-stage conversions was then calculated.ResultsOur search yielded 483 publications. Twenty-five publications qualified for inclusion. The overall calculated risk ratio for leak in 1- versus 2-stage conversions was .90 (confidence interval [CI] .51–1.61, P = .73). Eight publications were found that discussed conversion from laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The risk ratio for 1- versus 2-stage conversions for this subgroup was .82 (CI .35–1.93, P = .65). Eight publications were found that evaluated conversion to sleeve gastrectomy. The risk ratio of leak for 1- versus 2-stage conversions for these patients was 1.61 (CI .55–4.72, P = .39).ConclusionsBased on the results of this meta-analysis, there does not appear to be a significant difference in the overall leak rate between 1- and 2-stage adjustable gastric band conversions. The findings of our subgroup analysis suggest that there may be a safety advantage for 1-stage procedures when converting to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 2-stage procedures when converting to sleeve gastrectomy.     

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.     

Revisional bariatric surgery for inadequate weight loss

When behavioral or anatomic issues are not present, revisional surgery should be approached with a goal of treating malnutrition or enhancing excess weight loss. Unfortunately, no randomized controlled trials currently exist to help the practicing bariatric surgeon choose which revisional procedure to perform. A review of the available literature was undertaken and compared with our standard practices to see if any guidelines could be devised. At our institution, patients who have failed jejunal-ileal bypass are reversed in the setting of malnutrition and converted to a sleeve gastrectomy (SG) followed by duodenal switch (DS) as a second stage procedure in the setting of inadequate weight loss. After failed vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), patients are converted to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP). After failed adjustable gastric band (AGB) placement, we perform RYGBP. In the super-obese, we leave the band in place or convert to a DS with band removal. In patients with failed RYGBP, we convert our patients to DS, but placement of an AGB may be an acceptable option.     

Laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery: myths and facts

Background Bariatric surgery is growing worldwide. An increasing number of patients will require revisional procedures because of inadequate weight control, complications, or loss of quality of life.Methods From August 1999 to September 2003, 62 patients were submitted to laparoscopic revisional surgery.Results The primary operations consisted of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding in 39 cases, banded and nonbanded Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in 17 cases, vertical banded gastroplasty in 4 cases, and biliopancreatic diversion in 2 cases. Although technically demanding, laparoscopic conversion to RYGB was possible in all cases. Mean operative time was 100 min. Mean hospital stay was 77 h. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. A good body mass index reduction after the revisional procedure was observed with a 24 month follow-up period.Conclusions Laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery is safe and effective. However, it should be performed only by experienced bariatric and laparoscopic surgeons.     

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

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

Improvement of esophageal dysmotility after conversion from gastric banding to gastric bypass

BackgroundPatients undergoing adjustable gastric banding can develop clinically apparent alterations in esophageal motility. There is little data on how such patients do after band removal and revision to other bariatric operations. One article in the literature describes long term manometric evidence of dysmotility in a band patient converted to gastric bypass.Methods132 patients undergoing placement of an adjustable gastric band by a single surgeon in a university hospital setting were followed over a two year period. 15 (11%) developed unrelenting dysphagia, reflux and regurgitation despite conservative management including complete deflation, and were revised to gastric bypass. Pre-revision contrast studies demonstrated esophageal dysmotility in all patients. The first seven were converted in a staged fashion, with a period of six to eight weeks between band removal and gastric bypass. During this time, motility was again studied to confirm a return to normal. The last eight were converted at the time of band removal and motility was restudied after gastric bypass.ResultsEsophageal motility normalized radiologically after band removal and remained normal after conversion to bypass in all patients. Symptoms of dysphagia similarly resolved. The revisional complication rate was acceptable.ConclusionThe presence of a gastric band may be sufficient in some patients to bring about esophageal dysmotility. However, many will bring this about through forced eating against the band. When the band is poorly tolerated and further weight loss is required, such patients can safely convert to gastric bypass and can expect a return to normal motility.     

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.     

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.     

Duodenal switch in revisional bariatric surgery: conclusions from an expert consensus panel

BackgroundDuodenal switch (BPD/DS) is gaining popularity as a secondary procedure for inadequate weight loss after an initial operation.ObjectivesWe aimed to generate expert consensus points on the appropriate use of BPD/DS in the revisional bariatric surgical setting.SettingData were gathered at an international conference with attendees from a variety of different institutions and settings.MethodsSixteen lines of questioning regarding revisional BPD/DS were presented to an expert panel of 29 bariatric surgeons. Current available literature was reviewed extensively for each topic and proposed to the panel before polling. Responses were collected and topics defined as achieving consensus (≥70% agreement) or no consensus (<70% agreement).ResultsConsensus was present in 10 of 16 lines of questioning, with several key points most prominent.ConclusionsAs a second-stage procedure, BPD/DS is most appropriate after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for the treatment of super morbid obesity (96.7% agree) or as a subsequent operation for a reliable patient with insufficient weight loss after SG (88.5%). In a patient with weight regain and reflux and/or enlarged fundus after SG, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is preferable and BPD/DS should be avoided (90%). BPD/DS should not be used prophylactically in patients with a history of jejunoileal bypass who are otherwise doing well (80.8%). Applicability of BPD/DS is limited by technical difficulty; 86.2% of experts would routinely recommend or consider the procedure if it were more technically feasible after failed bypass. No consensus was found on approaches to revision of BPD/DS for protein malnutrition.     

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass,sleeve gastrectomy,or one anastomosis gastric bypass as rescue therapy after failed adjustable gastric banding: a multicenter comparative study

Background

To date, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding remains the third most commonly performed surgical procedure for weight loss. Some patients fail to get acceptable outcomes and undergo revisional surgery at rates ranging from 7% to 60%. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are among the most common salvage options for failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

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

BackgroundAlthough gastric bypass is the most common bariatric procedure in the United States, it is has been associated with a failure rate of 15% (range 5–40%). The addition of an adjustable gastric band to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass has been reported to be a useful revision strategy in a small series of patients with inadequate weight loss after proximal gastric bypass.MethodsWe report on 22 patients who presented with inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain after proximal gastric bypass. All patients underwent revision with the placement of an adjustable silicone gastric band around the proximal gastric pouch. The bands were adjusted at 6 weeks postoperatively and beyond, as needed. Complications and weight loss at the most recent follow-up visit were evaluated.ResultsThe mean age and body mass index at revision was 41.27 years (range 25–58) and 44.8 ± 6.34 kg/m², respectively. Patients had experienced a loss of 19%, 27%, 47.3%, 42.3%, 43%, and 47% of their excess weight at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months after the revisional procedure, respectively. Three major complications occurred requiring reoperation. No band erosions have been documented.ConclusionThe results from this larger series of patients have also indicated that the addition of the adjustable silicone gastric band causes significant weight loss in patients with poor weight loss outcomes after gastric bypass. That no anastomosis or change in absorption is required makes this an attractive revisional strategy. As with all revisional procedures, the complication rates appear to be increased compared with a similar primary operation.     

Trends in revisional bariatric surgery using the MBSAQIP database 2015-2017

BackgroundThe third most common bariatric surgery is revisional bariatric surgery. The American College of Surgeons tracks outcomes using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Initiative Program database. We used this database to examine trends in revisional bariatric surgery.ObjectiveTo evaluate how trends in bariatric revisional surgery have changed in recent years.SettingUniversity Hospital, United States.MethodsThe Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Initiative Program database for 2015 to 2017 was examined for revisions of bariatric surgery. Patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery were identified by the primary Current Procedural Terminology code, the REVCONV and PREVIOUS_SURGERY field as well as secondary Current Procedural Terminology codes. There is no exact code for sleeve gastrectomy (SG) to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), so we used 43644 (GB)+REVCONV+PREVIOUS_SURGERY for this.ResultsFor the years 2015 to 2017 there were 57,683 revisions/conversions of 528,081 patients. The number of revisions increased over the study period by 5213 cases. The most common revision was laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) to SG with 15,433 cases and the second was LAGB to LRYGB with 10,485 cases. There were 14,715 LAGB removals. It is more difficult to track SG to LRYGB but there were 8491 unlisted cases, which may have been sleeve to bypass.ConclusionLAGBs are being taken out or converted, and this group makes up the largest portion of revisions and conversions. It is difficult to track SG to LRYGB, but the number of unlisted cases continues to climb. This will likely surpass LAGB conversions with time. The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Initiative Program should be modified to capture revisions/conversions of SG.     

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 surgery after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a systematic review

Background

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has emerged as one of the most commonly performed bariatric procedures worldwide. Unfortunately, revisional surgery is required in 20–30 % of cases. Several revisional strategies have been proposed, but there is no consensus regarding the best surgical option. This systematic review was designed to determine which revisional surgery (laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch) is best suited to enhance weight loss following failed LAGB due to complications or inadequate weight loss.

Methods

EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Clinical Trials were searched using the most comprehensive timeline for each database. A total of 24 relevant articles were identified. Two investigators independently extracted data, and differences were resolved by consensus. The weighted means were calculated for weight loss measurements.

Results

A total of 106, 514, and 71 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), and laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion and duodenal switch (BPDDS), respectively. Before revisional surgery, the weighted mean body mass index (BMI) was 38.8 (6.9), 43.3 (8.1), and 41.3 (7.2) kg/m² for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. The majority of data was reported at 12–24 months follow-up. The mean BMI within this interval was 28 (10.5), 32.2 (6.4), and 33 (5.7) kg/m² for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. In addition, the mean excess weight loss (EWL) was 22 % (2.8), 57.8 % (11.7), 47.1 % (14) for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. The EWL reached 78.4 % (35) in the BPPDS group after 2-year follow-up.

Conclusions

Failed LAGB is best managed with conversion to another bariatric procedure. Stable weight loss occurs with salvage LRYGB. Although results for revisional BPPDS appear promising, additional research, with higher methodological quality, is needed.     

Complications after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has recently become a feasible option in the management of morbid obesity. The objective of this study was to examine the morbidity and mortality arising from LSG as a primary procedure for weight loss. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 164 patients who underwent LSG from 2004 to 2007. Patients underwent LSG as a primary procedure or as revisional bariatric surgery. The short-term morbidity and mortality were examined. RESULTS: One-stage LSG was performed in 148 patients. The major complication rate was 2.9% (4 of 149), including 1 leak (0.7%) and 1 case of hemorrhage (0.7%)-each requiring reoperation-1 case of postoperative abscess (0.7%), and 1 case of sleeve stricture that required endoscopic dilation (0.7%). One late complication of choledocholithiasis and bile duct stricture required a Whipple procedure. LSG was used as revisional surgery in 16 patients (9%); of these, 13 underwent LSG after complications related to laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, 1 underwent LSG after aborted laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and 2 underwent LSG after failed jejunoileal bypass. One of these patients developed a leak and an abscess (7.1%) requiring reoperation. One case was aborted, and 2 cases were converted to an open procedure secondary to dense adhesions. No patient died in either group. All but 3 cases were completed laparoscopically (98%). CONCLUSION: LSG is a relatively safe surgical option for weight loss as a primary procedure and as a primary step before a secondary nonbariatric procedure in high-risk patients.     

Outcome of revisional bariatric surgery for insufficient weight loss after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: an observational study

BackgroundInsufficient weight loss or secondary weight regain with or without recurrence of comorbidity can occur years after laparoscopic Roux en Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). In selected patients, increasing restriction or adding malabsorption may be a surgical option after conservative measures failed.ObjectivesEvaluation of short and long term results of revisional surgery for insufficient weight loss or weight regain after LRYGB.SettingTertiary hospital.MethodsRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a cohort of 1150 LRYGB patients. Included were patients, who underwent revisional bariatric surgery after LRYGB for insufficient weight loss with a follow-up of minimal 1 year.ResultsFifty-four patients were included in the analysis. After an interdisciplinary evaluation, patients with insufficient weight loss, signs of dumping syndrome, and lacking restriction were offered a nonadjustable band around the pouch (banded group, n = 34) and patients with sufficient restriction, excellent compliance, and adherence were offered a revision to laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion (BPD group, n = 20). The revisional procedure was performed 3.3 ± 2.3 years after LRYGB in the banded-group and after 6.4 ± 4.3 years in the BPD group (P = .001). Mean body mass index at the time of the primary bariatric procedure was 41.7 ± 6.2 kg/m² in the banded group and 45.2 ± 8.2 kg/m² in the BPD group (P = .08); minimal body mass index between both operations was 29.1 ± 4.7 kg/m² in the banded group and 36.5 ± 9.4 kg/m² in the BPD group, and, at the time of revisional surgery, 31.4 ± 5.5 kg/m² in the banded group and 40.8 ± 6.7 kg/m² in the BPD group (P = .0001). The mean body mass index difference 1 year after revisional surgery was 1.3 ± 3.0 kg/m² in the banded group and 6.7 ± 4.5 kg/m² in the BPD group (P = .01). In the banded group, 11 patients (32.4%) needed removal of the band, 4 patients (11.8%) needed an adjustment, and 4 patients (11.8%) were later converted to BPD. In the BPD group, 2 (10.0%) patients needed revision for severe protein malabsorption.ConclusionsInsufficient weight loss or secondary weight regain after LRYGB is a rare indication for revisional surgery. Banded bypass has modest results for additional weight loss but can help patients suffering from dumping. In very carefully selected cases, BPD can achieve additional weight loss with acceptable complication rate but higher risk for reoperation. Future “adjuvant medical treatments,” such as glucagon-like peptide 1 analogues and other pharmacologic treatment options could be an alternative for achieving additional weight loss and better metabolic response.     

Laparoscopic Adjustable Banded Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Primary Procedure for the Super-Super Obese (Body Mass Index > 60 kg/m<Superscript>2</Superscript>)

Isolated laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is increasingly being used for the treatment of morbid obesity. However, doubts still persist regarding long-term weight loss, and the 5-year results are awaited. Whether the aetiology of failed excess weight loss is the result of an inadequate sleeve or attributable to dilatation of the sleeve is not clear. In an effort to prevent gastric dilatation and increase gastric restriction to promote further weight loss in the long term, we performed a combined procedure of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding with sleeve gastrectomy. The patient was a 39-year-old woman with a life-long history of obesity and a body mass index of 79.8 kg/m². The surgical technique of the laparoscopic adjustable gastric banded sleeve gastrectomy is described. There were no immediate complications, and the patient was discharged home on the third postoperative day. She is doing extremely well on clinic follow-up at 6 weeks. To the best of our knowledge, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banded sleeve gastrectomy, as a primary operation, has not been described in the literature. It is hoped that this combined procedure will be most useful in the super-super obese (body mass index > 60) patients. More patients with a long-term follow-up are necessary to provide definitive conclusions regarding long-term benefits and complications of this combined bariatric procedure.     

Should bariatric revisional surgery be avoided secondary to increased morbidity and mortality?

Background

Revisional bariatric surgery may be necessary due to inadequate weight loss or postoperative complications of the primary operation. We sought to identify the reasons for revision, characteristics of the surgery, and outcomes. We hypothesize that revisional surgery, although technically challenging, can produce desirable outcomes.

Methods

Patients undergoing bariatric surgery at our institution between 1998 and 2007 were reviewed from a prospective database. Patients who had revisional surgery were compared to those who had primary surgery.

Results

We have identified 46 of 1,038 patients who underwent revisional surgery. Twenty of 46 had a primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The most common indication for revisions is inadequate weight loss secondary to gastrogastric fistula (15/20). Leaks occurred more frequently following revisional surgeries (11% vs 1.2%), but intensive care unit (ICU) utilization was less (11% vs 4.4%) and mortality was lower (0% vs .3%) with bariatric revision surgery.

Conclusions

Although we saw a 9-fold increase in leaks, a 2-5 fold increase in ICU utilization, and 1.5-fold increase in length of stay, our mortality rate was zero. In experienced hands, bariatric revision surgery can be performed to produce desirable outcomes.     

修正手术在减重手术治疗失败及并发症中的应用

对于绝大多数病态性肥胖患者,手术治疗至今仍然是唯一被证明有效并保持体质量丢失的办法.目前公认减重效果良好、安全可靠且应用较广泛的术式为可调节胃束带手术（AGB）、袖状胃切除术（SG）和Roux-en-Y胃旁路术（RYGB）.随着减重手术需求的增加,由于初次减重手术治疗效果不理想而要求修正手术的患者数量也随之增多.减重失败和术后并发症是进行修正手术的两个最主要的原因.一系列数据说明,修正手术对于不成功的体质量和初次手术引起的并发症是有效的治疗措施.需要根据初次减重手术的方式和结果来选择合理的修正手术.修正手术对于大部分患者而言,其获益大于风险.