Revisional Sleeve Gastrectomy Research Articles

Robotic bariatric surgery reduces morbidity for revisional gastric bypass when compared to laparoscopic: outcome of 8-year MBSAQIP analysis of over 40,000 cases.

Robotic-assisted metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is gaining popularity. Revisional MBS is associated with higher perioperative morbidity compared to primary MBS. The optimal surgical approach to minimize complications in these complex cases is unclear. The goal of this study was to assess robot utilization in revisional MBS and compare laparoscopic and robotic revisional MBS outcomes in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database. A retrospective review of the MBSAQIP database was performed identifying revisional sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) cases from 2015 to 2022. Primary MBS, open/emergent cases, cases converted to another approach, and combined cases other than esophagogastroduodenoscopy were excluded. 30-Day outcomes for laparoscopic and robotic cases were compared using multivariate logistic regression adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative variables. 41,404 Cases (14,474 SG; 26,930 RYGB) were identified. From 2015 to 2022, the percentage of revisional SG and RYGB cases performed robotically increased from 6.1% and 7.3% to 24.2% and 32.0% respectively. Laparoscopic SG had similar rates of overall morbidity, leak, bleeding, readmission, reoperation, and length of stay compared to robotic. Laparoscopic RYGB had significantly higher rates of overall morbidity (6.2% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.001, AOR 0.80 [0.70-0.93]), blood transfusion (1.5% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.05, AOR 0.74 [0.55-0.99]), superficial incisional SSI (1.2% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001, AOR 0.30 [0.19-0.47]), and longer length of stay (1.87 vs. 1.76days, p < 0.001) compared to robotic. Laparoscopic operative times were significantly shorter than robotic (SG: 86.4 ± 45.8 vs. 113.5 ± 51.7min; RYGB: 130.7 ± 64.7 vs. 165.5 ± 66.8min, p < 0.001). Robot utilization in revisional bariatric surgery is increasing. Robotic surgery has lower postoperative morbidity and shorter length of stay in revisional RYGB when compared to laparoscopic. Robotic platforms may have the capacity to improve the delivery of care for patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery.

Weight loss specific to indication, remission of diabetes, and short-term complications after sleeve gastrectomy conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most frequently performed bariatric procedure worldwide. Long-term complications such as insufficient weight loss (IWL) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) may necessitate SG conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). The aim of this review was to determine the indication-specific weight loss and diabetes remission after SG conversion to RYGB (STOBY). Our objective was to extract all available published data on indication for conversion, weight loss, remission of diabetes, and short-term complications after STOBY. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting outcomes following STOBY. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. The search identified 44 relevant studies. Overall short-term (12-mo) excess weight loss (EWL) was 54.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46%-63%) in 23 studies (n = 712) and total weight loss (TWL) was 19.9% (95% CI, 14%-25%) in 21 studies (n = 740). For IWL, short-term (12-mo) pooled weight loss outcomes were 53.9% EWL (95% CI, 48%-59%) in 14 studies (n = 295) and 22.7% TWL (95% CI, 17%-28%) in 12 studies (n = 219), and medium-term (2-5 yr) outcomes were 45.8% EWL (95% CI, 38%-53%) in 7 studies (n = 154) and 20.6% TWL (95% CI, 15%-26%) in 9 studies (n = 206). Overall diabetes remission was 53% (95% CI, 33%-72%), and the perioperative complication rate was 8.2% (95% CI, 7.6%-8.7%). Revisional SG conversion to RYGB for IWL can achieve goodweight loss outcomes and diabetes remission.

The durability of revisional sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after previous adjustable gastric band.

Patients with adjustable gastric banding (AGB) often require revision to one-stage or two-stage sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). To compare the long-term durability of revisional SG and RYGB, in terms of subsequent revision or conversion (RC). The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative Systems dataset was queried from 2006 to 2013 for patients who underwent primary SG and RYGB, one-stage, and two-stage conversion from AGB to SG and RYGB. Patients who required RC were identified. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare the RC risk among these groups. 13,749 had primary SG, 621 one-stage, and 321 two-stage AGB to SG. 31,814 had primary RYGB, 555 one-stage, and 248 two-stage AGB to RYGB. The estimated 5-year cumulative RC incidence rate was significantly lower after primary surgery than after prior AGB (one-stage AGB to SG 14.4%, two-stage AGB to SG 11.6%, primary SG 5.2%, one-stage AGB to RYBG 3.4%, two-stage AGB to RYGB 2.9%, and primary RYGB 1.1%, p-value < 0.0001). RYGB and SG did not differ significantly in terms of the elevation effect of one- and two-stage AGB conversion over primary surgeries (RYGB vs SG: one stage vs primary ratio of HR = 0.97, 95% CI = [0.58, 1.63], p-value = 0.9153; two stage vs primary ratio of HR = 1. 02, 95% CI = [0.50, 2.07], p-value = 0.9596). RC after AGB to SG or RYGB is more frequent compared to primary surgeries with procedures following AGB to SG being more common than AGB to RYGB. However, that difference was proportionally similar to the RC rate ratio differences noted for primary SG and RYGB.

Revisional Surgery After Adjustable Gastric Banding: Sleeve Gastrectomy or Gastric Bypass?

Adjustable gastric banding was the most common type of bariatric surgery performed in Korea prior to 2019. Many patients that have undergone this procedure require revisional bariatric surgery while removing the gastric band, and it is important to select an appropriate revisional procedure. If reoperation is performed owing to insufficient weight loss or weight regain, a 1-step procedure can be considered. However, a 2-step procedure is preferred when complications such as band erosion or stomach perforation have occurred. Previous studies from Western countries have shown that revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) can achieve more effective postoperative weight loss than revisional sleeve gastrectomy, although this procedure may also carry a higher risk of morbidity, reoperation, and readmission to hospital. In Korea, the short-term outcomes of the 2 procedures may be similar. However, the potential risk of gastric cancer in the remnant stomach after RYGB must also be considered. The type of revisional surgery should be selected following discussions with the patient regarding the advantages and disadvantages associated with each procedure.

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.

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.

Long-term endoscopic follow-up after sleeve gastrectomy.

Endoscopic follow-up after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) sometime reveals worrisome findings as the presence of major digestive lesions such as esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus (BE), and also esophageal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency and severity of esophageal and gastric lesions after SG. Our team collected the results of esogastric endoscopies performed on patients who underwent SG up to five years before in our hospital, from April 2010 to August 2014. Summons were sent by mail to all patients operated on between those dates. The results were collected from January 2018 to June 2019. Of the 765 patients who underwent SG up to five years before, only 78 (10.2%) agreed to undergo an upper digestive endoscopy. The average age before surgery was 51 years (range: 25-70 years). The mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 44.2±4.6kg/m2. For 12 out of these 78 patients (15.4%) it was revisional surgery: 9 SG after gastric banding, and 3 revisional SG (Re-SG). With an average follow-up of 6.3±0.8 years, the endoscopic results of the 78 patients were found to be normal in 31 cases (39.7%): gastritis was found in 28 patients (35.9%), severe grade C or D esophagitis was found in 15 cases (19.2%), hiatal hernia in 18 cases (23.1%), a benign gastric polyp in 2 cases (2.6%). Of the 28 patients with gastritis, HelicobacterPylori was detected in 8 cases (28.6%). No cancer was diagnosed, and BE after SG was found in only one case (1.3%) (normal before surgery). Six of 15 patients with esophagitis (40%) had reflux symptoms. Fourteen of these patients (93.3%) developed de novo esophagitis. Only 10.2% of operated patients agreed to a long-term esogastric endoscopy. The frequency and severity of endoscopic anomalies observed with an average follow-up of more than 6 years pleads for a policy of systematic upper endoscopies of long-term control after SG.

Comparative analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery: perioperative outcomes from the MBSAQIP database.

There are limited data evaluating the role of robotics in revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) compared with laparoscopy. The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic RBS. The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database. The 2015 to 2017 MBSAQIP database was queried for patients undergoing revisional robotic and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic approaches, adjusting for demographic characteristics, co-morbidities, and operative time. A total of 17,012 patients underwent revisional SG with 15,935 (93.7%) laparoscopic and 1077 (6.3%) robotic, and 12,442 patients underwent revisional RYGB with 11,212 (90.1%) laparoscopic and 1230 (9.9%) robotic. Overall morbidity was higher in robotic SG compared with laparoscopic SG (6.7% versus 4.5%; adjusted odds ratio 1.51; P < .01) which was not the case after adjustment for operative time. Robotic RYGB was associated with comparable overall morbidity to laparoscopic (9.3% versus 11.6%; adjusted odds ratio .83; P = .07) although respiratory complications, pneumonia, superficial surgical site infections, and postoperative bleeding were lower with robotic RYGB. The robotic approach with both procedures was associated with longer operative time (P < .01). Length of stay was longer in the robotic group for SG (P < .01) but was not different for RYGB (P = .91). Robotic RBS has an increased complication profile compared with the laparoscopic approach for SG and decreased for RYGB. Further analysis is needed regarding variability in surgeon technique and operative experience to determine what factors contribute to these differences.

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy After Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty: Technical Aspects and Short-Term Outcomes.

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) utilizes full-thickness sutures to plicate the greater curvature of the stomach. As with other weight loss interventions, some patients end up requiring revision to another procedure for insufficient weight loss or weight regain, discomfort, and procedure-related adverse events. In this paper, we report our technique and short-term outcomes of revisional sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) after ESG. Specialized medical center with standardized multidisciplinary protocols for medical, surgical, and endoscopic management of obesity. A combined laparoscopic-endoscopic technique that identifies plication orientation and the location of anchors and sutures was employed. This prepares the stomach for safe stapling, excluding sutures and anchors from the staple line and the retained sleeve. Hereby, we report this technique with its short-term safety and efficacy outcomes. Twenty patients (16 female; mean age 40 ± 6years) underwent revisional LSG from a total of 1665 (1.2%) who underwent primary ESG. Mean body mass index at the time of primary and revision procedures were 35.0 ± 4.0 and 35.2 ± 3.8kg/m2, respectively. Nadir % total weight loss (%TWL) after primary ESG was 7.7 ± 3.5%. %TWL at 6 and 12months after LSG was 21.0 ± 2.7 (n= 11) and 25.6 ± 4.1 (n= 8), respectively. There were no missed follow-up visits. Additionally, there was no mortality, prolonged hospital stay, adverse events, reoperations, or readmissions. Based on this combined laparoscopic-endoscopic technique, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is a safe and feasible revision option for patients who fail ESG.

Clinicopathologic Correlation of Initial and Revisional Sleeve Gastrectomy Procedures

Clinicopathologic Correlation of Initial and Revisional Sleeve Gastrectomy Procedures

Outcomes of Two-Step Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Reasons for the Gastric Banding Explantation Matter.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the reason for gastric band explantation would influence percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) following revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG). This is a retrospective cohort study, whose data are maintained in a prospective surgical database. The study period was from January 2012 to March 2017. Revisional surgeries were performed in a two-step manner, namely, first surgery LAGB explantation and second surgery (RYGB or SG). Two-way between-groups analysis of variance was used to examine effects of reason for band explantation (failed versus complication) and type of revisional surgery (RYGB versus SG) on %EWL at 10months, 1 and 2years. Cohort included 171 patients-146 women (85.4%) and 25 men, median age 51years (range 22-76). Band-related complications accounted for 55% of explantations. Overall, 95 patients (56%) underwent a revisional RYGB, and 76 patients underwent a revisional SG. There was no difference in age or gender in terms of reason for band explantation or choice of revisional surgery. There was no difference in morbidity between the two groups (SG 2.6% versus RYGB 4.2%; p=.464). Patients undergoing revisional RYGB for failed weight loss had a significantly lower %EWL at 2years compared to patients undergoing an SG for failed weight loss (p=.014) or an RYGB for band-related complications (p=.021). Patients undergoing revisional RYGB following band explantation for failed weight loss have a significantly lower %EWL at 2years compared to patients undergoing an SG for failed weight loss or an RYGB for band-related complications.

Postoperative Bleeding and Leakage After Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Single-Center Experience.

Sleeve gastrectomy is being performed increasingly, mainly due to its low morbidity and mortality, but complications do occur. The aim of this study was to evaluate bleeding and leakage rates of primary and revisional sleeve gastrectomy in a personal series of 664 consecutive patients. Medical charts of all patients undergoing a primary or revisional sleeve gastrectomy between August 2008 and December 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. Subgroup analysis compared bleeding in patients after reduced port versus multiport technique and primary versus revisional sleeve gastrectomy. A total of 664 sleeve gastrectomies (489 women and 175 men) were performed. Mean age and body mass index were 36.03 ± 11.4years and 42.9 ± 8.3kg/m2, respectively. Mean operative time was 58.5 ± 20.0min, with a 0.15% conversion rate. Mean hospital stay was 2.1 ± 0.3days. The overall 30-day complication rate was 7.5%. Thirteen patients sustained postoperative bleeding (2%), three of whom required reoperation (0.5%). Staple line leakage and mortality were both nil in this series. No difference in postoperative complications was found between the subgroups. In this single-surgeon, single-center experience, sleeve gastrectomy was a safe and effective bariatric procedure with a low complication rate. Staple line reinforcement by oversewing was associated with low bleeding complications and no leakage. The majority of patients with postoperative bleeding could be managed conservatively. In our experience, reduced port technique and revisional sleeve gastrectomy had similar complication rates compared to multiport and primary sleeve gastrectomy.

Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review of Comparative Outcomes with Respective Primary Procedures.

Though primary bariatric surgery is now firmly established as the first-line treatment for morbid obesity, this is not the case with revisional bariatric surgery. Despite proven benefits and patient demand, revisional bariatric surgery continues to attract controversy. Even though it is widely believed to be riskier and less effective than primary bariatric surgery, there is currently no systematic review in literature addressing this point. This review aims to establish outcomes after revisional bariatric surgery in comparison with those after primary bariatric surgery. Since Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy is currently the commonest anatomy achieved after revisional bariatric surgery, this review focuses on the outcome of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and revisional sleeve gastrectomy in comparison with respective primary procedures.

Revised sleeve gastrectomy (re-sleeve)

BackgroundLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has rapidly become increasingly popular in bariatric surgery. However, in the long-term follow-up, weight loss failure and intractable severe reflux after primary LSG can necessitate further surgical interventions. ObjectivesTo evaluate the safety and the efficiency of revisional sleeve gastrectomy (ReSG). SettingPrivate hospital. MethodsFrom October 2008 to October 2014, 61 patients underwent ReSG. All patients with failure after primary LSG underwent radiologic evaluation, and an algorithm of treatment was proposed. ResultsSixty-one patients (54 women, 7 men; mean age 40.8 yr) with a body mass index (BMI) of 39.4 kg/m² underwent ReSG. The primary LSG was performed for mean BMI of 46.2 kg/m² (range 35.4–77.9). The mean interval time from the primary LSG to ReSG was of 37.5 months (9–80 mo). The indication for ReSG was insufficient weight loss in 28 patients (45.9%), weight regain in 29 patients (47.5%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in 4 patients. In 42 patients the gastrografin swallow results were interpreted as primary dilation and in the remaining 19 cases as secondary dilation. The computed tomography (CT) scan volumetry was obtained in 38 patients with mean gastric volume of 436.3 cc (275–1056 cc). All cases were completed by laparoscopy with no intraoperative incidents. The mean operative time was 39 minutes (range 29–70 min) and the mean hospital stay was 3.5 days (range 3–16 d). One perigastric hematoma and 2 cases of gastric stenosis were recorded. The mean BMI decreased to 29.2 kg/m2 (range 20.2–37.5); the mean percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) was 58.5% (±25.3) (P<.0004) for a mean follow-up of 20 months (range 6–56 mo). ConclusionThe ReSG may be a valid option for failure of primary LSG. Further prospective clinical trials are required to compare the outcomes of ReSG with those of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or duodenal switch for weight loss failure after LSG.

Revised sleeve gastrectomy: another option for weight loss failure after sleeve gastrectomy

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is becoming a very common bariatric procedure, based on several advantages it carries over more complex bariatric procedures such as gastric bypass or duodenal switch (DS), and a better quality of life over gastric banding. However, in the long-term follow-up, weight loss failure and intractable severe reflux after primary LSG can necessitate further surgical interventions, and revisional sleeve gastrectomy (ReSG) can represent an option to correct these. From October 2008 to June 2013, 36 patients underwent an ReSG for progressive weight regain, insufficient weight, or severe gastroesophageal reflux in 'La Casamance' Private Hospital. All patients with weight loss failure after primary LSG underwent radiological evaluation. If Gastrografin swallow showed a huge unresected fundus or an upper gastric pouch dilatation, or if the computed tomography (CT) scan volumetry revealed a gastric tube superior to 250 cc, ReSG was proposed. Thirty-six patients (34 women, two men; mean age 41.3 years) with a body mass index (BMI) of 39.9 underwent ReSG. Thirteen patients (36.1 %) had their original LSG surgery performed at another hospital and were referred to us for weight loss failure. Twenty-four patients (66.6 %) out of 36 had a history of gastric banding with weight loss failure. Thirteen patients (36.1 %) were super-obese (BMI > 50) before primary LSG. The LSG was realized for patients with morbid obesity with a mean BMI of 47.1 (range 35.4-77.9). The mean interval time from the primary LSG to ReSG was 34.5 months (range 9-67 months). The indication for ReSG was insufficient weight loss for 19 patients (52.8 %), weight regain for 15 patients (41.7 %), and 2 patients underwent ReSG for invalidating gastroesophageal reflux disease. In 24 cases the Gastrografin swallow results were interpreted as primary dilatation, and in the remaining 12 cases results were interpreted as secondary dilatation. The CT scan volumetry was realized in 21 cases, and it has revealed a mean gastric volume of 387.8 cc (range 275-555 cc). All 36 cases were completed by laparoscopy with no intraoperative incidents. The mean operative time was 43 min (range 29-70 min), and the mean hospital stay was 3.9 days (range 3-16 days). One perigastric hematoma was recorded. The mean BMI decreased to 29.2 (range 20.24-37.5); the mean percentage of excess weight loss was 58.5 % (±25.3) (p < 0.0004) for a mean follow-up of 20 months (range 6-56 months). The ReSG may be a valid option for failure of primary LSG for both primary or secondary dilatation. Long-term results of ReSG are awaited to prove efficiency. Further prospective clinical trials are required to compare the outcomes of ReSG with those of Roux en Y Gastric Bypass or DS for weight loss failure after LSG.

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

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. 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. 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/m(2)) 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). 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.

Sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass as revisional bariatric procedures: retrospective evaluation of outcomes

A considerable number of patients require revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Studies that compared the outcomes of revisional sleeve gastrectomy (r-SG) and revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (r-RYGB) after failed LAGB are scarce in the literature. Our objective was to determine whether significant differences exist in outcomes between r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB. From 2005 to 2012, patients who underwent laparoscopic r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB were retrospectively compared and analyzed. Data included demographics, indication for revision, operative time, hospital stay, conversion rate, percentage excess weight loss (%EWL), and morbidity and mortality. Out of 693 bariatric procedures, 42 r-SG and 53 r-RYGB were performed. The median preoperative weight (107.7 and 117.7 kg, respectively, p = 0.02) and body mass index (BMI) (38.5 vs. 43.2 kg/m(2), respectively, p = 0.01) were statistically significantly lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB. The mean operative time and median hospital stay were significantly shorter in r-SG than in r-RYGB (108.4 vs. 161.2 min, p < 0.01) (2 vs. 3 days, p = 0.02), respectively. One patient underwent conversion to open surgery after r-RYGB (p = 0.5). The reoperation rate was lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB (0.0 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.5). There was one postoperative leak in the r-RYGB, and the overall complication rate was significantly lower in r-SG patients than in r-RYGB patients (7.1 vs. 20.8 %, p = 0.05). The mean follow-up was significantly shorter in the r-SG group (9.8 vs. 29.3 months, p < 0.01). However, the mean postoperative BMI was not different at 1 year (32.3 vs. 34.7, p = 0.29) as well as mean %EWL was (47.4 vs. 45.6 %, p = 0.77). Both r-SG and r-RYGB are safe procedures with similar outcomes in terms of %EWL. As a result of the long-term potential nutritional complication of r-RYGB, r-SG may be a better option in this group of patients. Longer follow-up is needed.

Previous Bariatric Surgery Increases Postoperative Morbidity after Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity

Objectives : Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has been used as the first step of a staged malabsorptive procedure for high-risk patients. More recently SG was proposed as an stand alone procedure in the treatment of morbidly obese patients. The aim of this study is to analyze perioperative outcome of morbid obese patients after SG. Methods : 301 patients, 201 women and 100 men, undergoing SG were retrospectively analyzed. SG was performed by 17 surgeons all member of the Club Coelio.The mean BMI was 44.7kg/m2 (27.4–70.3 kg/m2). 34 patients (11.3%) of our series had SG as revisional surgery. These revisional procedures consisted of 32 conversions from gastric banding, 1 conversion from vertical gastroplasty (VBG) and 1 from transoral endoscopic gastroplasty. Among the 32 patients that had revisional SG after a gastric banding, 13 bands were removed at least 3 months before the revisional SG and 19 bands were removed during the SG procedure. Endpoints were perioperative morbidity and mortality and potential risk factors for complications, mainly per or postoperative bleeding or leakage.Results : Overall mortality was 0% and morbidity was 10.3%. Perioperative bleeding occurred in 10 patients (3.3%), leakage in 12 patients (4%) patients and stenosis in 3 patients (1%). The risk of leakage was significantly higher after revisional bariatric surgery and in case of gastric perforation during surgery(p = 0.0001). Previous gastric banding is also associated with a higher risk of postoperative bleeding (p = 0.0006).Conclusions : SG can be safely performed but patients and surgeons must be aware of a higher risk of postoperative complications when SG is proposed as a revisional surgery.

PL-308: Revisional sleeve gastrectomy for failed LAGB/VBG

PL-308: Revisional sleeve gastrectomy for failed LAGB/VBG