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.     

Quality of Life,Weight Loss and Improvement of Co-morbidities After Primary and Revisional Laparoscopic Roux Y Gastric Bypass Procedure—Comparative Match Pair Study

Background

The prevalence of morbid obesity and its co-morbidities is dramatically increasing, as is the extent of weight loss surgery. A large number of patients after various bariatric procedures need revisional intervention for various reasons. We investigated the efficacy and the safety of revisional laparoscopic Roux Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) among our patients, who were revised as a consequence of inadequate weight loss or weight regain after previous bariatric interventions.

Methods

A comparative, double-centre, match pair study was performed comparing the data of 44 patients after revisional surgery with 44 patients after primary gastric bypasses, focusing on weight loss, life quality and improvement of co-morbidities. Matching criteria were age, gender, preoperative BMI and follow-up period. Previous procedures consisted of 23 gastric bandings, 13 sleeve resections, 4 LRYGB and 4 vertical banded gastroplasties.

Results

Extra weight loss (EWL) was significantly reduced after revisional gastric bypasses compared to primary intervention (EWL 66 vs. 91 %, p?p?=?0.22; Moorehead-Aldert II score 1.4 vs. 2.0, p?=?0.10). The resolution rate of co-morbidities (T2DM, hypertension, gastro-oesophageal reflux (GER), osteoarthrosis, sleep apnoea) was also higher after primary gastric bypasses.

Conclusions

Revisional LRYGB is an effective and safe method for patients with inadequate weight loss after previous bariatric surgery concerning weight reduction, life quality and improvement of co-morbidities. Our results indicate lower efficacy of revisional compared to primary LRYGB reaching statistical significance in regard to weight loss.     

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.     

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.     

Conversion of Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding to Gastric Bypass: a Comparison to Primary Gastric Bypass

Introduction

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has a considerable failure rate. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is one of the rescue options. This study aims to compare the complication rates and outcomes between LAGB converted to LRYGB and primary LRYGB.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed in all patients converted from LAGB to LRYGB between January 2007 and March 2017. This group was compared to a matched cohort of primary LRYGB patients operated during the same period. Early and late complications, weight loss, and improvement of comorbidities were analyzed.

Results

One hundred sixty-one revisional LRYGB patients were compared to a similar number of primary LRYGB patients. Preoperative age, gender distribution, weight, and BMI were comparable. Mean operative time was longer in the revisional group (137.7 vs. 112.7 min, respectively, P?<?0.001). The overall early complication rates were comparable between the groups (7.5 vs. 11.8%, P?=?0.16), including postoperative leak rate (0.62%). Follow-up of at least 6 months was attained in 78% of the patients. Revisional cases demonstrated less weight loss (61.5 vs. 73.5%EWL, respectively, P?=?0.004) and slightly less improvement of comorbidities (75.0 vs. 85.7%, respectively, P?=?0.09). The late complication rate was comparable (8.1 vs. 8.1%, P?=?1.0).

Conclusion

Albeit longer operating time, revision of LAGB to LRYGB is a safe procedure, with similar complication rates when compared to primary LRYGB. Although revisional LRYGB does result in less weight loss than primary LRYGB, the procedure’s safety makes it a very plausible option as a rescue operation for failed LAGB.

     

Revisional surgery after failed adjustable gastric banding: institutional experience with 90 consecutive cases

Background

Revisional surgery may be required in a high percentage of patients (up to 30 %) after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). We report our institutional experience with revisional surgery.

Methods

From January 1996 to November 2011, 90 patients underwent revisional surgery after failed LAGB. Both Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) were proposed. In the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease, esophageal dysmotility, hiatal hernia, or diabetes, RYGB was preferentially proposed.

Results

In two cases, revisional surgery was aborted due to local severe adhesions. Eighty-eight patients (74 females; mean age 42.79 ± 10.03 years; mean BMI 44.73 ± 6.19 kg/m²) successfully underwent revisional SG (n = 48) or RYGB (n = 40). One-stage surgery was performed in 29 cases. Follow-up rate was 78.2 % (n = 61) and 40.9 % (n = 36) at 12 and 24 months respectively. One major complication after SG (staple-line leakage) was observed. Overall postoperative excess weight loss (%EWL) was 31.24, 40.92, 52.41, and 51.68 % at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up respectively. There was a statistically significant higher %EWL at 1 year in patients <50 years old (55.9 vs. 41.5 % in patients >50 years old; p = 0.01), of female gender (55.22 vs. 40.73 % in male; p = 0.04), and in patients in which the AGB was in place for <5 years (57.09 vs. 47.43 % if >5 years p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Revisional surgery is safe and effective. Patients <50 years, of female gender, and with the AGB in place for <5 years had better %EWL after revisional surgery.     

Outcomes of Revisional Procedures for Insufficient Weight Loss or Weight Regain After Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass

Background

The Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) performed laparoscopically (LRYGB) is the most frequently performed bariatric procedure in Belgium. However, late results in terms of weight loss or weight regain are inconsistent and may warrant a second procedure. This retrospective study analyzes the laparoscopic options for revisional surgery after LRYGB.

Methods

Between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2009, 70 patients underwent a new laparoscopic procedure for poor weight loss or weight regain after LRYGB. The revisional procedure was performed a median of 2.6?years after the initial bypass operation. Fifty-eight patients were available for follow-up (82.9?%); 19 underwent distalization; and 39 a new restrictive procedure.

Results

The mean mass index (BMI) before the revisional procedure was 39.1?+?11.3?kg/m² (30.8?C51.8), down from 42.7?+?19.7?kg/m² (33.0?C56.6) initially, which corresponded to a percentage of excess weight loss (EWL) of 12.4?+?9.3?% (?1.0?C29.1). After the corrective procedure, with a follow-up of approximately 4?years, mean BMI was 29.6?+?12.4?kg/m² (18.0?C45.5), for a significant additional percentage of EWL of 53.7?+?9.8?% (2.0?C65.8). The overall complication rate was 20.7?%, and the reoperation rate was 7.3?%. The overall leak rate was 12.1?%. Patients suffering from leaks could consistently be treated conservatively or by stent placement. Two patients needed reconversion after distal bypass. The satisfaction index was good in just over 50?% of the patients.

Conclusion

Revisional laparoscopic surgery after RYGB performed for weight issues provides good additional weight loss but carries significant morbidity. Leaks can usually be handled non-surgically. Patient satisfaction is only fair.     

Single-stage revision from gastric band to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy: 6- and 12-month outcomes

Background

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is increasingly requiring revisional surgery for complications and failures. Removal of the band and conversion to either laparoscopic Roux-en-y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is feasible as a single-stage procedure. The objective of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of single-stage revision from LAGB to either LRYGB or LSG at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.

Methods

Retrospective analysis was performed on patients undergoing single-stage revision between 2009 and 2014 at a single academic medical center. Patients were reassessed for weight loss and complications at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.

Results

Thirty-two patients underwent single-stage revision to LRYGB, and 72 to LSG. Preoperative BMIs were similar between the two groups (p = 0.27). Median length of stay for LRYGB was 3 days versus 2 for LSG (p = 0.14). Four patients in the LRYGB group required reoperation within 30 days, and two patients in the LSG group required reoperation within 30 days (p = 0.15). There was no difference in ER visits (p = 0.24) or readmission rates (p = 0.80) within 30 days of operation. Six delayed complications were seen in the LSG group with three requiring intervention. At 6 months postoperatively, percent excess weight loss (%EWL) was 50.20 for LRYGB and 30.64 for LSG (p = 0.056). At 12 months, %EWL was 51.19 for LRYGB and 34.89 for LSG (p = 0.31). There was no difference in diabetes or hypertension medication reduction at 12 months between LRYGB and LSG (p > 0.07).

Conclusion

Single-stage revision from LAGB to LRYGB or LSG is technically feasible, but not without complications. The complications in the bypass group were more severe. There was no difference in readmission or reoperation rates, weight loss or comorbidity reduction. Revision to LRYGB trended toward higher rate and greater severity of complications with equivalent weight loss and comorbidity reduction.

     

Reduction in obesity-related comorbidities: is gastric bypass better than sleeve gastrectomy?

Background

Bariatric surgery is currently the most effective treatment for morbid obesity. It provides not only substantial weight loss, but also resolution of obesity-related comorbidities. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has rapidly been gaining in popularity. However, there are limited data on the reduction of obesity-related comorbidities for LSG compared to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of laparoscopic LSG versus LRYGB for the treatment of obesity-related comorbidities.

Methods

A total of 558 patients who underwent either LSG or LRYGB for morbid obesity at the Westchester Medical Center between April 2008 and September 2010 were included. Data were collected prospectively into a computerized database and reviewed for this study. Fisher’s exact test analyses compared 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year outcomes of obesity-related comorbidities.

Results

A total of 558 patients were included in the analysis of obesity-related comorbidity resolution; 200 underwent LSG and 358 underwent LRYGB. After 1 year, 86.2 % of the LSG patients had one or more comorbidities in remission compared to 83.1 % LRYGB patients (P = 0.688). With the exception of GERD (?0.09 vs. 50 %; P < 0.001), similar comorbidity remission rates were observed between LSG and LRYGB for sleep apnea (91.2 vs. 82.8 %; P = 0.338), hyperlipidemia (63 vs. 55.8 %; P = 0.633), hypertension (38.8 vs. 52.9 %; P = 0.062), diabetes (58.6 vs. 65.5 %; P = 0.638), and musculoskeletal disease (66.7 vs. 79.4 %; P = 0.472).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy markedly improves most obesity-related comorbidities. Compared to LRYGB, LSG may have equal in reducing sleep apnea, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, and musculoskeletal disease. LRYGB appears to be more effective at GERD resolution than LSG.     

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.     

Increased Metabolic Benefit for Obese,Elderly Patients Undergoing Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass vs Sleeve Gastrectomy

Purpose

We sought to assess outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) vs laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) in a cohort of morbidly obese, elderly patients.

Materials and Methods

Retrospective review was conducted of all patients age 60 years or greater undergoing LSG or LRYGB at our institution between 2007 and 2014.

Results

A total of 134 patients who underwent LSG (n = 65) or LRYGB (n = 69) were identified. Groups were similar with respect to age (64 years, range 60–75 years), BMI (44.0 ± 6.1), and ASA score (91% ≥ ASA 3). There were no differences in major post-operative complications (3, 4.7% LSG vs 4, 5.8% LRYGB, p = 0.75). Median follow-up was 39 months (IQR 14–64 months) with no patients lost to follow-up. Patients undergoing LRYGB had improvement in each of diabetes mellitus 2 (DM2), hypertension (HTN), hyperlipidemia (HL), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) as well as a significant decrease in insulin use (16/47, 34.0% pre-operatively vs 7/47, 15.2% post-operatively; p = 0.03). Patients undergoing LSG had improvement in DM2 and HTN but not in HL or GERD; there was no reduction in insulin dependence. Weight loss was not significantly different between groups; mean percent total weight loss at 36 months was 26.9 ± 9.0% in the LSG group and 23.9 ± 9.3% in the LRYGB group, p = 0.24.

Conclusions

Both LSG and RYGB can be safely performed on morbidly obese, elderly adults. At intermediate follow-up, there is an increased metabolic benefit for elderly patients undergoing LRYGB over LSG.

     

Predictive factors of excess body weight loss 1?year after laparoscopic bariatric surgery

Background

Bariatric surgery (BS) is widely accepted for the treatment of patients with morbid obesity (MO). We aimed to determine presurgical predictors of and surgical technique-related differences in excess weight loss (EWL) 1?year after BS.

Methods

This retrospective study included 407 subjects (F/M 3:1, median age?=?44?years) who underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB, n?=?307) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG, n?=?100) at our University Hospital and were evaluated 1?year after surgery.

Results

Baseline median (min–max) body mass index (BMI) was 47?kg/m² (range?=?36–71). BMI was higher in the SG than in the RYGB group (53 vs. 46?kg/m², p?p?p?=?0.2), was lower in diabetic than in nondiabetic subjects (71?±?17% vs. 79?±?17%, p?p?p?=?0.4) after taking into account baseline BMI. Multiple regression and logistic analysis showed that younger individuals with lower BMI but higher WC, and lower HbA1c and TG, had higher EWL and a higher rate of successful (EWL?≥?60%) weight loss.

Conclusions

Our data indicate that some of the characteristics that would have subjects referred early for BS were associated with higher weight loss. Therefore, the timing of laparoscopic BS might be an important factor for MO individuals in which medical weight loss intervention has failed.     

Effect of source of funding on weight loss up to 3 years after gastric banding

Background

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is a popular choice for patients seeking weight loss surgery. Since behavioural change appears to play a role in weight loss outcomes we postulated that publicly funded patients might not do as well as self-payers. This series examines the effect of public funding versus self-pay on patients undergoing LAGB over 1, 2 and 3 years.

Methods

Consecutive non-randomised cohort series of patient undergoing LAGB over 5 years (September 2003 to December 2008) in a single unit. Age, sex, funding route, body mass index (BMI) and complications were recorded. Per cent excess weight loss (EWL) and the Reinhold criterion for success (proportion achieving 50 % EWL) were assessed.

Results

Ninety-nine patients were publicly funded, and 250 patients were self-payers. Initial BMI was significantly higher in publicly funded patients (46.6 vs. 42.3 kg/m², p < 0.001) with a higher proportion of males (22.2 vs. 6.0 %, p < 0.001). Mean % EWL was significantly less for publicly funded patients at 1 year (38.1 vs. 53.5 %, p < 0.001) and 2 years (49.6 vs. 64.1 %, p < 0.001), but not at 3 years (59.7 vs. 61.8 %, p = 0.784). Fewer publicly funded patients achieved 50 % EWL at 1 year (24.5 vs. 50.2 %, p < 0.001), but with no significant difference at 2 years (54.8 vs. 67.0 %, p = 0.140) or 3 years (55.2 vs. 66.0 %, p = 0.349).

Conclusions

Self-pay patients initially achieved more % EWL and greater success in reaching 50 % EWL after LAGB, but this difference was not maintained. The results suggest that patient motivation, using self-pay as a surrogate marker, may affect early results, but the operation itself is the main determinant of weight loss at 3 years.     

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding in Adolescents

Background

The goal of this study is to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) in obese adolescents.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of all adolescents between the ages of 15 and 19 who underwent LAGB or LRYGB at our university affiliated Bariatric Center of Excellence from 2002 to 2011. Postsurgical weight loss at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24?months was noted and expressed as percentage of excess weight loss (% EWL).

Results

Thirty-two patients underwent LRYGB and 23 underwent LAGB. The LAGB group was younger (18.6?±?0.6 versus 17.2?±?1.5) than the LRYGB group. Other preoperative demographic factors including body mass index, gender, ethnicity, and comorbidities were similar between the two groups. The average % EWL was superior in the LRYGB group compared to the LAGB group at all time points studied (p?<?0.05), although at 2-year follow-up, only 16?% (5/32) LRYGB and 30?% (7/23) LAGB patients were available for follow-up. Three patients with type II diabetes mellitus underwent LRYGB and all experienced remission of their diabetes. The number of complications requiring interventions was similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

In our study, adolescents undergoing LRYGB achieved superior weight loss compared to LAGB in the short-term follow-up. The complication rate for LAGB was similar compared to LRYGB. More studies are needed to monitor the long-term effects of these operations on adolescents before definitive recommendations can be made.     

Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Definitive Surgical Procedure for Morbid Obesity. Mid-Term Results

Background

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been gaining acceptance because it has shown good short- and mid-term results as a single procedure for morbid obesity. The aim of this study was to compare short- and mid-term results between laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and LSG.

Methods

Observational retrospective study from a prospective database of patients undergoing LRYGB and LSG between 2004 and 2011, where 249 patients (mean age 44.7 years) were included. Patients were followed at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months, and annually thereafter. Short- and mid-term weight loss, comorbidity improvement or resolution, postoperative complications, re-interventions, and mortality were evaluated.

Results

One hundred thirty-five LRYGB and 114 LSG were included. Significant statistical differences between LRYGB and LSG were found in operative time (153 vs. 93 min. p?<?0.001), minor postoperative complications (21.5 % vs. 4.4 %, p?=?0.005), blood transfusions (8.8 % vs. 1.7 %, p?=?0.015), and length of hospital stay (4 vs. 3 days, p?<?0.001). There were no differences regarding major complications and re-interventions. There was no surgery-related mortality. The percentage of excess weight loss up to 4 years was similar in both groups (66?±?13.7 vs. 65?±?14.9 %). Both techniques showed similar results in comorbidities improvement or resolution at 1 year.

Conclusions

There is a similar short- and mid-term weight loss and 1-year comorbidity improvement or resolution between LRYGB and LSG, although minor complication rate is higher for LRYGB. Results of LSG as a single procedure need to be confirmed after a long-term follow-up.     

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.     

Revisional Gastric Bypass for Failed Restrictive Procedures: Comparison of Single-Anastomosis (Mini-) and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Background

Ten to 50% of patients who received restrictive bariatric operations may require reoperation for unsatisfactory weight loss or weight regain. Failed restrictive procedures are usually managed with conversion to another bariatric procedure with a favor of conversion to laparoscopic gastric bypass. Our aim is to evaluate two different bypass techniques, laparoscopic RY gastric bypass (RYGB) versus single-anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass (SAGB) as a revision option (R-RYGB and R-SAGB) for failed restrictive bariatric operations.

Material and Methods

From May 2001 to December 2015, a total of 116 patients with failed restrictive bariatric operations underwent laparoscopic revisional bypass surgery (81 R-SAGB and 35 R-RYGB). Among them, 81 were failed after vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) and 35 were after adjustable gastric band (AGB). The demographic data, surgical parameters, and outcomes were studied.

Results

The average age at revision surgery was 35.7 years (range 22–56), and the average body mass index (BMI) before reoperation was 37.2 kg/m² (29.0–51.8). Revision surgery was performed after 58.8 months from the primary surgery on average (14–180 months). The main reasons for the revisions were weight regain (50.9%), inadequate weight loss (31%), and intolerance (18.1%). All of the procedures were completed laparoscopically as one-stage procedure. R-RYGB had significantly longer operative times than R-SAGB. Major complication occurred in 12 (10%) patients without significant difference between R-SAGB group and R-RYGB group. At 1 year follow-up, weight loss was better in R-SAGB than R-RYGB (76.8 vs. 32.9% EWL; p = 0.001). At 5 year follow-up, a significantly lower hemoglobin level was found in R-SAGB group (p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Both SAGB and RYGB are acceptable options for revising a restrictive type of bariatric procedures with equal safety profile. R-SAGB was shown to be a simpler procedure with better weight reduction than R-RYGB but anemia is a considerable complication at long-term follow-up.

     

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.     

Impact of Extent of Antral Resection on Surgical Outcomes of Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity (A Prospective Randomized Study)

Background

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a surgical technique that treats morbid obesity.

Methods

Consecutive patients with morbid obesity treated by LSG at our department were evaluated. Patients enrolled in the study were randomized into group I (LSG begins the division 2 cm from the pylorus) and group II (LSG begins the division 6 cm from the pylorus). The primary outcome measure was the percent of excess weight loss (% EWL); secondary outcomes included postoperative morbidity and mortality and improvement of comorbidity.

Results

One hundred five patients (79 (75.2 %) were females) were randomized into two groups of (GI) 52 patients and (GII) 53 patients. In group I, the mean % EWL was 51.8?±?13.9, 63.8?±?16.1 and 71.8?±?12; however, in group II, the mean % EWL was 38.3?±?10.9, 51.9?±?13.6 and 61?±?11.1 at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively (P?=?0.0001, 0.0001, 0.003). There was weight regain after 2 years in five patients in group II and only one patient in group I (P?=?0.09). There was no significant difference between both group as regards gastric leakage, vomiting or GER. There was significant improvement in comorbidity after LSG in both groups, but no significant difference between them. Hospital mortality occurred in group II in one case as a result of gastric leakage.

Conclusions

LSG is a safe and effective procedure with good short-term outcome. Increasing the size of the resected antrum is associated with better weight loss without increasing the rate of complications significantly.     

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.