Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding Research Articles

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Failure: Could the Number of Previous Operations Influence the Outcome?

After a failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been proposed as revisional surgery. Those patients that receive a second restrictive procedure fall into a small subgroup of patients with more than one restrictive procedure (MRP). If also the second restrictive procedure fails, the correct surgical strategy is a challenge for the surgeon. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) may be an option but there is no evidence in the literature on whether the procedure is effective in treating failures after MRP. This study aims to evaluate the influence of the previous number of restrictive interventions (MRP vs single LSG) in the results of RYGB as revisional surgery. We have retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent conversion from laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), or from multiple restrictive procedures (MRP), to RYGB for weight regain (WR) or insufficient weight loss (IWL) between 2009 and 2019. The number of patients analyzed was 69 with conversion to RYGB after LSG and 44 after MRP. The reduction of excess weight (%TWL) at 3, 6, 12, 24 RYGB postoperative months was respectively of 11.03%, 16.39%, 21.43%, and 24.22% in the MRP group, and of 10.97%, 16.4%, 21.22%, and 22.71% in the LSG group. No significant difference was found in %TWL terms after RYGB for the MRP group and the LSG group with an overall %TWL, which was 11.00 ± 6.03, 16.40 ± 8.08, 21.30 ± 9.43, and 23.30 ± 9.91 respectively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The linear regression model highlighted a positive relationship between the %EWL post-bypass at 24 months and the time elapsed only between the LSG and RYGB in the MRP group patients (p < 0.001). RYGB has proved to be a reliable technique with good results in terms of weight loss after failed bariatric surgery both in patients who previously underwent MRP and in those who underwent exclusively LSG. RYGB showed better results in patients who experienced WR than in those who had IWL from previous techniques.

Propensity score matching analysis comparing outcomes between primary and revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after adjustable gastric banding: a retrospective record-based cohort study

BackgroundOne-stage revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) after Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is widely adopted, but its safety is still debated.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare outcomes between primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (PRYGB and RRYGB after LAGB.MethodA retrospective record-based cohort study of patients who underwent PRYGB and RRYGB for failed LAGB and completed at least 2 years of follow-up from 2008 to 2019. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to obtain a balanced sample of patients with RRYGB and PRYGB interventions by adjusting for baseline covariates including age and sex.ResultsPatients with PRYGB (n = 558) and RRYGB (n = 156) were included. PSM identified 98 patients for RRYGB and 98 patients for PRYGB. Both cohorts exhibited significant reductions in BMI compared to baseline values (p < 0.001), but reductions were significantly higher in PRYGB compared to those in RRGYB at 6 months (− 10.55 ± 8.54 vs. − 8.38 ± 5.07; p = 0.032), 1-year (− 21.50 ± 8.19 vs. 16.14 ± 6.93; p < 0.001), and 2 years (− 24.02 ± 7.85 vs. − 18.93 ± 6.80; p < 0.001), respectively. A significant improvement in food tolerance from the 1st to the 2nd year was seen after RYGB (p < 0.001). The rates of early and late complications were similar in both cohorts (p = 0.537, p = 1.00). Overall re-intervention rates were 5.1 and 3.1% for RRYGB and PRYGB p = 0.721). Both cohorts exhibited significant improvement in comorbidities after 2 years (p < 0.001).ConclusionsOne-stage RRYGB for failed LAGB is safe and effective with comparable rates of complications, re-interventions, and resolution of associated comorbid conditions compared to PRYGB.

Conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus one-anastomosis gastric bypass after a failed primary gastric band: a matched nationwide study.

Primary laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has high rates of patients not achieving the desired weight loss, and it remains unclear which bariatric conversion procedure gives better results. To compare weight loss among patients undergoing conversion one-anastomosis gastric bypass (cOAGB) and conversion Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (cRYGB) after a failed LAGB. Nationwide population-based study including all 18 hospitals providing metabolic and bariatric surgery. Patients with a failed primary LAGB who underwent a cRYGB or cOAGB between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, were selected from the Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity. The primary outcome was not achieving ≥20% total weight loss (TWL) at 1-year and up to 5-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, defined as Clavien-Dindo ≥III within 30 days, and co-morbidity remission. A propensity score matched logistic and Poisson regression model was used to estimate the difference in patients not achieving ≥20% TWL between cRYGB and cOAGB. A total of 615 (78.7%) patients underwent cRYGB, and 166 (21.3%) patients underwent cOAGB, with 163 patients successfully matched. Both groups had similar rates of patients not achieving ≥20% TWL at 1 year (odds ratio [OR] = .64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .38-1.05). However, a sensitivity analysis showed that patients undergoing cOAGB had lower rates of patients not achieving ≥20% TWL up to 5-year follow-up (rate ratio = .69, 95% CI: .51-.95, P < .05). Patients undergoing cOAGB were less likely to achieve hypertension remission (OR = .22, 95% CI: .07-.66). There were no significant differences between groups in postoperative complications (OR = .39, 95% CI: .07-2.06, P > .05). This matched nationwide study suggests that the cOAGB has similar short-term weight loss outcomes but potentially better long-term weight loss results than cRYGB. Therefore, cOAGB could provide a reliable alternative but needs to be substantiated in future long-term studies.

Single-Anastomosis Sleeve Jejunal (SAS-J) Bypass as Revisional Surgery After Primary Restrictive Bariatric Procedures

PurposeSingle-anastomosis sleeve jejunal (SAS-J) bypass is the modification of a single-anastomosis sleeve ileal (SASI) bypass with a short biliary limb. SAS-J bypass is reported to be a good primary bariatric procedure. This study aimed to evaluate the results of SAS-J bypass as a revisional surgery after failed primary restrictive bariatric procedures.Material and MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study including 43 patients who underwent SAS-J bypass as a revisional surgery for weight regain after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), or laparoscopic gastric plication.ResultsOf the total patients, 35 (81.4%) were female, and 8 (18.6%) were male. The mean BMI was 46.3 kg/m2. The mean age was 41 years. Thirty-two patients (74.4%) had a failed sleeve, 9 (20.9%) had a failed LAGB, and 2 (4.7%) had a failed gastric plication. The mean operative time was 104 min. Intra-abdominal bleeding occurred in 1 case (2.3%), and intraluminal bleeding occurred in 3 cases (7%). No case (0%) developed a leak. The percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) reached 76.5% after 1 year. Type 2 diabetes mellitus remission occurred in all diabetic patients, hypertension remitted in 80%, hyperlipidemia remitted in 83.3%, and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome improved in all cases. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms were improved in 86.7% of patients. Significant biliary gastritis occurred in 4 patients (9.3%). Dumping syndrome was reported in 4 patients (9.3%).ConclusionsSAS-J bypass was effective as a salvage surgery after failed restrictive bariatric procedures, but long-term follow-up is needed.Graphical abstract

One-stage conversion of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to laparoscopic 1-anastomosis gastric bypass: a single-center experience on 1,000 patients at 5 years of follow-up.

Data regarding the use of 1-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) as a conversion technique after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) failure is scarce in the literature. The aim of this study was to assess our experience with OAGB as a rescue procedure after failed LAGB. This study involved patients treated at a private hospital in France. This single-center retrospective study included all consecutive patients receiving OAGB from January 2005 to January 2016. Of the 3,224 patients, 63.5% received primary OAGB (pOAGB) and 36.5% received OAGB as a conversion procedure after LAGB (cOAGB). During the period considered, 2,046 patients with obesity received pOAGB, whereas 1,000 patients underwent conversion of LAGB to OAGB in 1 step. The rate of patients lost to follow-up at 5 years was 31% in the pOAGB group and 32.5% in the cOAGB group (P = .4). Five years after the surgery, the mean body mass index was 30.8 ± 10.2 kg/m2, the mean percentage total weight loss was 34.6% ± 9.6%, and the mean percentage excess weight loss was 76.1% ± 24.6% in the pOAGB group, and the mean was 29.7 ± 10.4 kg/m2 (P = .58), the mean percentage total weight loss was 33.8% ± 10.2% (P = .82) and the mean percentage excess weight loss was 73.5% ± 22.2% (P = .78) in the cOAGB group. There was no difference in terms of early complications between the 2 groups (3.2% pOAGB versus 3.6% cOAGB, P = .59), while there was a statistically significant difference in terms of late complications (11% pOAGB versus 18% cOAGB, P < .00001). In particular, there was a significantly higher incidence of symptomatic postoperative biliary reflux in the cOAGB group (12% in cOAGB versus 5% in pOAGB, P < .00001). In this study, OAGB was effective and safe as a rescue technique after LAGB failure. Conversion in one step did not appear to increase the risk of early complications, whereas a history of gastric banding seems to increase the risk of bile reflux in the long term.

Long-term outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure after failed gastric band: a multicenter cross-matched cohort study

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is the bariatric procedure most likely subject to revisional surgery. Both laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) represent viable options, but the long-term results are still lacking. In 2014, we published the 2-year follow-up of our multicenter cohort of revisional LSG after failed LAGB. Evaluate the long-term follow-up (median 9.3 years) of the same cohort of patients. University and primary-care hospitals, Italy. We retrospectively examined a prospectively maintained database of the previously published multicenter cohort of 56 patients who underwent LSG after failed LAGB between 2008–2011. The control group included cross-matched non-revisional LSGs. The primary endpoint was weight loss, secondary endpoints co-morbidities, and the need for further bariatric surgery. The study group included 44 patients and the control group 56. We found %EWL 53% Vs. 67% (p = .021), %EBMIL (54 Vs. 68%, p = .018), %TWL (26 Vs. 34%, p = .002). We also found more severe GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease) symptoms in the revisional than in the primary group (9.0 vs. 1.8% mild and 23.0 vs. 3.0% severe). Ten patients from the revisional group (22.7%) vs. eight in the primary group (13%) underwent further bariatric surgery (LRYGB). Our results showed less favorable weight loss in revisional than primary LSG after LABG, higher prevalence of GERD, and a more frequent need for further revisional surgery. Despite the study’s limitations, the present data suggest that the long-term outcomes may offset the possible reduced short-term complication rate after revisional sleeve gastrectomy for a failed LABG.

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Following Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding-a Comparison Between One- and two-Stage Procedures, an Israeli National Database Study.

The optimal revisional bariatric surgery procedure following a previous failed gastric band surgery is yet to be determined. The aim of our study was to compare single- and two-stage laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) following laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in terms of short- and mid-term outcomes. Patients who underwent LSG after a failed LAGB in Israel during 2014-2017 were included. Data were obtained from the Israeli National Bariatric Surgery Registry. Data analyzed included comorbidities, postoperative complications, and anthropometric outcomes. Of 595 patients included in the data analysis, 381 (64%) underwent one-stage and 214 (36%) had two-stage LSG. No differences were observed between the groups in complication rates (5.0 vs. 5.1%, p=0.93). Percent of total weight loss was lower following one-stage than two-stage procedure at both 6 months (19.3±9.3 vs. 21.5±8.1%; p=0.02) and 1 year postoperative (24.9±10.4 vs. 27.8±9.9%; p=0.02). No difference was observed in the percent excess weight loss (51 vs. 56%; p=0.34 and 66 vs. 72%; p=0.38, at 6 months and 12 months postoperative, respectively). In a regression analysis, percent excess weight loss was greater in the two-stage procedure (p=0.02), with no difference in the complication rates (p=0.98). Single-step LSG had a similar safety profile as two-stage LSG following a failed LAGB. Better weight loss was seen following two-stage LSG. Further prospective studies should investigate long-term follow-up after one- and two-stage procedure.

How Far Can Our Expectations Go on Revisional Bariatric Surgery After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding?

Bariatric surgery has proven its effectiveness in the treatment of obesity and related comorbidities. However, several procedures may be required to treat this chronic disease and/or complications after bariatric surgery. The most frequent revisional surgeries performed after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (AGB) have been Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The aim of this study is to compare medium-term outcomes of primary and revisional bariatric procedures. Single institution, matched case-control study of obese patients submitted to bariatric surgery, divided into four groups of 50 patients: (A) primary RYGB; (B) primary SG; (C) revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB) after failed laparoscopic AGB; (D) revisional sleeve gastrectomy (rSG) after failed laparoscopic AGB. Demographic variables, surgical procedures characteristics and complications, weight loss outcomes and resolution of comorbidities were compared. Mortality and morbidity were comparable between primary and revisional procedures. Weight loss outcomes were inferior in patients submitted to rRYGB when compared to those submitted to RYGB, with no significant differences found when comparing the other groups. Regarding comorbidities' outcomes, only patients submitted to rSG had lower odds of comorbidities' improvement. Patients submitted to rRYGB had an odd 7 times higher of comorbidities' improvement than those submitted to rSG, independent of weight loss outcomes. Revisional surgeries are safe procedures with adequate weight loss outcomes in this difficult set of patients. The choice of revisional procedure may not influence weight loss outcomes, but rRYGB seems to be a better option regarding comorbidities' resolution.

Safety of Single Stage Revision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Compared to Laparoscopic Roux-Y Gastric Bypass after Failed Gastric Banding

BackgroundReoperation, after failed gastric banding, is a controversial topic. A common approach is band removal with conversion to laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in a single-step procedure.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the safety of revisional surgery to LSG compared to LRYGB after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) based on MBSAQIP Participant User File from 2015 to 2018.MethodsPatients who underwent a one-stage conversion of LAGB to LSG (Conv-LSG) or LRYGB (Conv-LRYGB) were identified in the MBSAQIP PUF from 2015 to 2017. Conv-LRYGB cases were matched (1:1) with Conv-LSG patients using propensity scoring to control for potential confounding. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.ResultsA total of 9974 patients (4987 matched pairs) were included in the study. Conv-LRYGB, as compared with conv-SG, was associated with a similar risk of mortality (0.02% vs. 0.06%; relative risk [RR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 3.20, p = 0.32). Conversion to LRYGB increased the risk for readmission (6.16% vs. 3.77%; RR, 1.63; 95%CI, 1.37 to 1.94, p < 0.01); reoperation (2.15% vs. 1.36%; RR, 1.57; 95%CI, 1.17 to 2.12, p = <0.01); leak (1.76% vs. 1.02%; RR, 1.57; 95%CI, 1.72 to 2.42, p < 0.01); and bleeding (1.66% vs. 1.00%; RR, 1.66; 95%CI, 1.7 to 2.34, p < 0.01).ConclusionsThe study shows that single-stage LRYGB and LSG as revisional surgery after gastric banding, are safe in the 30-day observation with an acceptable complication rate and low mortality. However, conversion to LRYGB increased the risk of perioperative complications.

What to Propose After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding: One‐ or Two‐step Procedure?

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) can be proposed in case of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). The main question is whether the revisional procedure is carried out in one or two stages. Postoperative outcomes between the one-step approach and the two-step approach of conversion of failed LAGB to RYGB or SG were, respectively, compared. A systematic review of the literature published until June 2019 was conducted. All studies comparing one-step and two-step approaches after failed LAGB were included. Primary outcomes include both mortality and morbidity at 30days postoperatively according to Dindo-Clavien classification. Among the studies included, a random effect model was used with Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). A total of 3895 patients had conversion of failed LAGB to RYGB (n = 3214) or SG (n = 681), respectively. The conversion was carried out in one-step (n = 2767) or two-step (n = 1128) approaches. Meta-analysis did not show statistical difference for overall morbidity rate (OR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.78-1.30, p = 0.96) whether it is for SG (OR = 1.25, 95%CI = 0.73-2.14, p = 0.42) or RYGB (OR = 0.94, 95%CI = 0.71-1.26, p = 0.69) and for major postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.96, 95%CI = 0.59-1.56, p = 0.87) whether it is for SG (OR = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.22-1.97, p = 0.46) or RYGB (OR = 1.05, 95%CI = 0.61-1.81, p = 0.86). Moreover, there was no statistical difference for specific morbidity rate including reoperation, leak, abscess, postoperative bleeding, and late postoperative complications. Given the retrospective nature of the studies, these results should be interpreted with caution. This updated meta-analysis suggests that conversion of failed LAGB to RYGB or SG can be safely performed in one-step or two-step approaches.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as a Revisional Procedure After Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding.

Recent data demonstrates that laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is found to be associated with high rates of weight loss failure and long-term complications. Therefore, the search for the optimal revisional bariatric procedure is ongoing. We aim to assess the safety and efficacy of converting a failed LAGB to laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) as a revisional procedure. Large, metropolitan, tertiary, university hospital. Retrospective review of patients who underwent OAGB after LAGB.Demographics, comorbidities, BMI before and after the procedure, complications, and length of stay were documented. Fifty-seven patients underwent OAGB after LAGB. For 41 patients, the band was removed, and an OAGB was performed in a single procedure (71.9%), and 96.5% of the cases were completed laparoscopically. Postoperative complications occurred in 9 patients (15.7%), including one mortality. Average BMI decreased from 42.8 ± 7.0 to 31.3 ± 5.2kg/m2 at least 1year after surgery, representing a mean %EWL of 64.5%. There was no statistical difference in complication rates between the 1-stage and 2-stage approach. Conversion of a failed LAGB to OAGB is effective but carries higher complication rates. Randomized controlled studies comparing different procedures are necessary to further clarify the optimal revisional bariatric operation.

Decreasing complication rates for one-stage conversion band to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: A retrospective cohort study.

Background:Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) revision surgery is often necessary because of its high failure rate. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that better patient selection, when converting a failed LAGB to a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) as a one-stage revision procedure, is safe, feasible and improves the complication rate.Patients and Methods:A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent a one-stage conversion of failed gastric banding to a LSG. Collected data included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), intraoperative complications, length of stay and post-operative complications. The results were compared to a previous study of 90 cases of LSG as a revision procedure for failed LAGB.Results:There were 75 patients in the current study, 61 women and 14 men, aged 25–67 (average: 46), with a mean BMI of 45 kg/m2 (32–66). Seventy patients (93.3%) were operated for insufficient weight loss and 5 patients (6.7%) for intolerance to the band. In our previous study, 35 patients (39%) were operated for slippage, erosion or obstruction and 14 (15.6%) had post-operative complications as opposed to only 4 patients (5.3%) in this series (P = 0.0359). Gastric leak also improved to 1.3% compared to 5.5% previously. Average hospitalisation time was 2.5 days (1–40).Conclusions:Rigorous patient selection, without band complications such as slippage, erosion or obstruction, allows for a significantly lower rate of operative complications for a one-stage conversion of failed gastric banding to a LSG.

Clinical Outcomes of Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding.

Over recent decades, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been among the most common bariatric surgeries. Nowadays, many patients require revision surgery due to insufficient weight loss and band-related complications. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are the two most common revision surgeries for failed LAGB, but the conclusions about their efficacy and safety have been inconsistent. This meta-analysis aimed to review the clinical outcomes of SG and RYGB after failed LAGB. In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were systematically searched for articles that had studied the efficacy and safety of SG and RYGB. The most appropriate effects model was chosen based on the heterogeneity of the articles included in this meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata 14.0. Of 586 articles that were retrieved, 16 articles which examined 2141 SG and 2990 RYGB patients met the inclusion criteria. The patients in RYGB groups showed increased percent excess weight loss (%EWL) at 12 and 24months after revision surgery but no statistically significant change was found about %EWL after 3, 6, or 36months. In addition, RYGB was associated with a higher rate of complications, interventions, and readmission in addition to being of more operative time. This review suggested that RYGB was more effective at demonstrating weight loss after 12 and 24months, but comparisons of the long-term efficacy of RYGB with that of SG remain inconclusive. In addition, RYGB was accompanied by a greater number of post-operative complications, interventions, and readmissions. Thus, surgeons should consider the overall status of the patients and their comorbidities as crucial factors when selecting a form of revision surgery. Additional high-quality randomized controlled studies are required to further compare the efficacy and safety of these treatments with longer follow-up times.

Efficiency of Laparoscopic One-Step Revision of Failed Adjusted Gastric Banding to Gastric Sleeve: a Retrospective Review of 101 Consecutive Patients.

Until recently, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was one of the most commonly performed bariatric surgeries worldwide. Today, its high rate of complications and failure rates up to 70% requires revisional surgery. The one-stage conversion from LAGB to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been shown to be safe, although there are some concerns on efficacy and long-term weight loss. To demonstrate that one-step revision of LAGB to another restrictive procedure, such as LSG, might have efficient long-term outcomes. The charts from 133 revisional LSGs for failed or complicated LAGB were retrospectively reviewed for the period between January 2010 and August 2017. Thirty-two patients were excluded for loss to follow-up. Demographics, complications, and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) were determined. One hundred one patients were included (85 women and 16 men), with a mean age of 48.5years, and a mean body mass index of 47.1kg/m2. During the follow-up, 15 patients (15%) underwent a second revisional surgery for weight loss failure (8 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP), 3 biliopancreatic diversion, 3 single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass, 1 revisional LSG). Ten patients (10%) had long-term complications (8 severe reflux and 2 stenosis) during this period and underwent a second revisional surgery (10 RYGBP). The remaining 76 had a mean follow-up of 4.3years and a mean %EWL of 53.2%. Single-stage conversion to LSG is a safe and appropriate solution for failed or complicated LAGB with good long-term weight loss.

Results of conversion of gastric banding to gastric bypass in patients between 50 and 60 years of age are similar to those observed in younger patients

BackgroundThe effect of age and gender on outcomes of revisional bariatric surgery has not been assessed. MethodsA retrospective analysis of patients undergoing revision from laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) to laparoscopic roux en Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) between 2007 and 2017 was performed. Patients were divided according to gender and age (<50 and ≥ 50 years), and the outcomes of the subgroups were compared. ResultsDuring the study period, 161 revisional LRYGBs were performed. Postoperative percentage of total body weight loss was comparable between the subgroups. No significant difference was observed between the groups in the improvement/resolution of comorbidities. Overall early complication rates were comparable, however major postoperative bleeding was more common in older patients (6.7 vs. 0.9%, p = 0.03). More late complications were demonstrated in females when compared to males (14.3 vs. 2.0%, p = 0.02). ConclusionsRevisional LRYGB after failed LAGB yields acceptable results, regardless of patient gender and age.

Short-Term Outcomes of Conversion of Failed Gastric Banding to Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy or Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass: a Meta-Analysis.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is associated with high long-term failure rates, often requiring conversion to an alternative bariatric procedure. The most efficacious procedure after failed LAGB is subject to debate. Our objective was to compare 12-month weight loss following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) vs. laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) performed for insufficient weight loss or weight regain after LAGB. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Medline for English language studies comparing weight loss after a conversion surgery for failed gastric banding. We examined studies with patients who had at least 1-year follow-up and included conversions to both LSG and LRYGB. A fixed effects model was created, and variance measures were calculated to measure heterogeneity. Both were analyzed for significance. All statistical analyses were conducted with the "meta" package in R 3.3.2. The initial search produced 17 studies. Six studies, consisting of 205 LSG and 232 LRYGB patients, met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Heterogeneity among studies was high (Q = 23.1; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in weight loss after 12months between the groups (p = 0.14). It remains unknown which conversion procedure is more appropriate to perform after a failed gastric band in order to achieve the highest weight loss potential. In our meta-analysis, there was no difference in weight loss after 12months in patients who were converted to LSG or LRYGB. Further studies and longer follow-up comparisons are required before firm conclusions can be drawn.

A comparison between one- and two-stage revisional gastric bypass.

The safety of performing a one-stage revision from laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) has been questioned. The objective of this study was to compare safety and outcomes of one-stage versus two-stage revisional LRYGB performed after failed LAGB. A retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing revisional LRYGB after failed LAGB between January 2007 and March 2017 was performed. Patients undergoing one- and two-stage revisions were compared. The primary outcome assessed was the early complication rate, while secondary outcomes included late complications, weight loss, and improvement of comorbidities. During the study period, 161 revisional LRYGB's were performed, including 121 one-stage and 40 two-stage procedures. Baseline demographic data, BMI and presence of comorbidities were similar between the groups. In patients undergoing a two-stage procedure, band slippage, port infection, and erosion were more commonly cited as indications for revision. Similar early complication rates were demonstrated between the groups. However, late complications were more common in the two-stage group (20.0% vs. 7.4%, P = 0.03), including higher rates of gastro-gastric fistula (5.0% vs. 0%, P = 0.01) and anemia (10.0% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.02). Three-fourths of the cohort had a follow-up of more than 6months, and the two groups demonstrated similar weight loss results and improvement/resolution of comorbidities. The performance of one-stage revisional LRYGB after failed LAGB seems to be a safe procedure, with noninferior outcomes when compared to a two-stage revisional procedure. It is a valid option, except in cases of mechanical and infectious band complications.

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

BackgroundTo 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. ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of converting failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to RYGB, OAGB, or SG. MethodsData collected from 7 experienced bariatric centers around the world were retrospectively collected, reviewed, and analyzed. Final body mass index (BMI), change in BMI, percentage excess BMI loss, and major complications with particular attention to leaks, hemorrhage, and mortality were reported. ResultsOf 1219 patients analyzed, 74% underwent RYGB, 16% underwent OAGB, and 10% underwent SG after banding failure. The mean age was 38 years (±10 yr), and 82% of patients were women. The mean follow-up was 33 months. The follow-up rate was 100%, 87%, and 52% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. At the latest follow-up, percentage excess BMI loss >50% was achieved by 75% of RYGB, 85% of OAGB, and 67% of SG patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 13% of patients after RYGB, 5% after OAGB, and 15% after SG. ConclusionOur data show that it is possible to achieve or maintain significant weight loss with an acceptable complication rate with all 3 surgical options.

Conversion Surgery for Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding: Outcomes with Sleeve Gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was once a preferred method of obesity treatment featuring a straightforward technique, removability, and good early results. In a significant proportion of patients, however, it was not a durable weight-loss procedure and has been associated with a high longer-term complication rate. The purpose of this study was to directly compare the results of conversion to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) after failed LAGB. Post-LAGB complications and weight outcomes of conversion (absolute weight, excess weight loss [%EWL], total weight loss [%TWL]) to LSG vs LRYGB were retrospectively reviewed and statistically compared using Fisher's exact test and the independent samples t test. Over a 6-year period, 74/272 (27.2%) morbidly obese LAGB patients experienced marked complications requiring band removal. Forty-nine of these patients underwent conversion by LRYGB (n = 29) or LSG (n = 20). There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates between converted procedures and no significant difference in respective EWL and TWL (6-month EWL: LRYGB, 53.6% vs LSG, 51.3% and respective TWL, 22.8 vs 21.3%; 12-month EWL, 70.1 vs 56.1%; and TWL, 30.7 vs 23.2%; p > 0.05). All conversion patients were present at each time point. Outcomes for LSG vs LRYGB following failed LAGB were equally safe and effective.

Gastric band conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass shows greater weight loss than conversion to sleeve gastrectomy: 5-year outcomes

BackgroundRoux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are often used as revisional surgeries for a failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). There is debate over which procedure provides better long-term weight loss. ObjectiveTo compare the weight loss results of these 2 surgeries. SettingUniversity hospital, United States. MethodsA retrospective review was conducted of all LAGB to RYGB and LAGB to LSG surgeries performed at a single institution. Primary outcomes were change in body mass index (BMI), percent excess BMI lost, and percent weight loss. Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications and reoperations. ResultsThe cohort included 192 conversions from LAGB to RYGB and 283 LAGB to LSG. The baseline age and BMI were similar in the 2 groups. Statistical comparisons made between the 2 groups at 24 months postconversion were significant for BMI (RYGB = 32.93, LSG = 38.34, P = .0004), percent excess BMI lost (RYGB = 57.8%, LSG = 29.3%, P < .0001), and percent weight loss (RYGB = 23.4%, LSG = 12.6%, P < .0001). However, the conversion to RYGB group had a higher rate of reoperation (7.3% versus 1.4%, P = .0022), longer operating room time (RYGB = 120.1 min versus LSG = 115.5 min, P < .0001), and longer length of stay (RYGB = 3.33 d versus LSG = 2.11 d, P < .0001) than the LAGB to LSG group. Although not significant, the conversion to RYGB group had a higher rate of readmission (7.3% versus 3.5%, P = .087). ConclusionWeight loss is significantly greater for patients undergoing LAGB conversion to RYGB than LAGB to LSG. However, those undergoing LAGB conversion to RYGB had higher rates of reoperation and readmission. Patients looking for the most effective weight loss surgery after failed LAGB should be advised to have RYGB performed, while also understanding the increased risks of the procedure.