Search

Background: One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) may expose the patient to certain specific complications. Here, we report the results of conversion of OAGB to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in terms of outcomes and weight loss., Methods: Between January 2009 and January 2019, all patients undergoing conversion of OAGB to RYGB because of complications due to OAGB (n = 23) were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was the effectiveness of converting OAGB to RYGB. The secondary endpoints were overall mortality and morbidity during the first 3 postoperative months, specific morbidity, reoperation, length of hospitalization, weight loss, and progression of comorbidities related to obesity at 2-year follow-up., Results: Indications for conversion were bile reflux (n = 14; 60.9%), severe malnutrition (n = 3; 13%), gastro-gastric fistula (n = 4; 17.4%), and anastomotic leak (n = 2; 8.7%). The median time interval between OAGB and conversion to RYGB was 34 months (0-158). At the time of RYGB, median body mass index (BMI) was 28.0 kg/m 2 (18.2-50.7), representing a median BMI change of 14.0 (- 1.7-43.5). Fifteen surgeries (65.1%) were completed laparoscopically. Five complications (21.7%) were recorded, including 2 major ones (8.7%). Reoperation rate was 4.3% (n = 1). At 24 months of follow-up (n = 18; 78.3%), median BMI was 28.7 kg/m 2 (19.4-35.4), representing a median BMI change of 19.5 (12.2-43.1). No patient complained of bile reflux or persistent malnutrition., Conclusion: RYGB performed as revisional surgery for complications after OAGB is an effective procedure with no major weight regain at 2 years of follow-up., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Endoscopy plays a pivotal role in the management of adverse events (AE) following bariatric surgery. Leaks, fistulae, and post-operative collection after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) may occur in up to 10% of cases., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic internal drainage (EID) for the management of leak, fistula, and collection following SG., Setting: Retrospective, observational, single center study on patients referred from several bariatric surgery departments to an endoscopic referral center., Methods: EID was used as first-line treatment for the management of leaks, fistulae, and collections. Leaks and fistulae were treated with double pigtail stent (DPS) deployment in order to guarantee internal drainage and second intention cavity obliteration. Collections were treated with endoscropic ultrasound (EUS)-guided deployment of DPS or lumen apposing metal stents., Results: A total of 617 patients (83.3% female; mean age, 43.1 yr) were enrolled in the study for leak (n = 300, 48.6%), fistula (n = 285, 46.2%), and collection (n = 32, 5.2%). Median follow-up was 19.5 months. Overall clinical success was 84.7% whereas 15.3% of cases required revisional surgery after EID failure. Clinical success according to type of AE was 89.5%, 78.5%, and 90% for leak, fistula, and collection, respectively. A total of 10 of 547 (1.8%) presented a recurrence during follow-up. A total of 28 (4.5%) AE related to the endoscopic treatment occurred. At univariate logistic regression predictors of failure were: fistula (OR 2.012), combined endoscopic approach (OR 2.319), need for emergency surgery (OR 1.755), and previous endoscopic treatment (OR 4.818)., Conclusion: Early EID for the management of leak, fistula, and post-operative collection after SG seems a safe and effective first-line approach with good long-term results., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Covered stent (CS) is required when gastric leak (GL) after sleeve gastrectomy is combined with gastric stenosis (GS) or when a large (>2 cm in diameter) gastric fistula is present (increasing the likelihood of double pigtail stent [DPS] migration)., Objective: To compare the results of our previous endoscopic management of large GL or GS associated with GL (using CS only) with those of our new endoscopic treatment (using combined CS and DPS)., Setting: University hospital, France, public practice., Material and Methods: Between January 2009 and June 2015, all patients treated for large GL or GS associated with GL after sleeve gastrectomy (n = 20 patients) were included. Our previous endoscopic management required CS placement (CS group), whereas our new endoscopic treatment required combined CS and DPS placement (CS+DPS group). The primary efficacy endpoint was the treatment duration after CS placement until closure of the GL. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the number of endoscopic procedures, the stent migration rate, and the failure rate., Results: Nine patients were treated by CS only (CS group), whereas 11 patients were treated by both CS and DPS (CS+DPS group). The median time to GL closure after CS placement was 84 days (33-130) in the CS group and 32 days (26-89) in the CS+DPS group (P≤.05). The median number of endoscopic procedures at the time of CS placement was 2 (1-3) in the CS group and 1 (1-2) in the CS+DPS group (P≤.05). The stent migration rate after CS placement was 33.3% in the CS group and 0% in the CS+DPS group (P = .21), and the failure rate was 11% and 0% (P = .36)., Conclusion: The combination of CS and DPS constitutes an effective treatment for large GL or GS associated with GL, allowing significantly fewer endoscopic procedures and a shorter treatment duration., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gastric leak (GL) represents one of the main early-onset postoperative complication of sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Most studies of GL featured short series and no data on the time to reoperation for persistent GL., Objectives: Characterize the time between discovery of persistent post-SG GL and the implementation of reoperation., Setting: University hospital, France, public practice., Methods: All patients treated for post-SG GL between November 2004 and December 2013 were included. The primary efficacy criterion was the time interval between discovery of a persistent GL and reoperation. The secondary efficacy criteria were demographic, surgical, and endoscopic data; mortality rate; time to GL healing; treatment success rate; and risk factors for failure treatment., Results: Eighty-six patients were treated for post-SG GL. Forty patients (46.5%) had early-onset GL (postoperative day ≤ 7). Two patients (2.3%) presented primary gastrobronchial fistula. Fifty-six patients (70%) underwent immediate reoperation. Endoscopic treatment was required to treat the GL in 92.7% of the cases (n = 77). The mortality rate was 1.2% (n = 1). The treatment success rate was 89.1%. The median time to healing GL was 84 days (14-423 d). Eighty percent of the GLs had healed 120 days after discovery. After 120 days, the incidence of complications related to GL increased and few additional GLs healed. The only identified risk factor for treatment failure was large retained gastric fundus (P ≤ .05)., Conclusions: Most cases of GL can be adequately treated by incorporating endoscopic stenting. Surgery for persistent GL should be performed within 120 days of discovery; after this cut-off, the incidence of GL-related complications increases. Large retained gastric fundus is a risk factor for treatment failure and may prompt the surgeon to consider earlier reoperation., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gastrobronchial fistula (GBF) is a complication of esophageal, splenic, or antireflux surgeries and was recently described as a complication of bariatric surgery. Our aim was to study all cases of GBF after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) managed in five French university bariatric centers in order to establish the incidence and to evaluate the different treatments of this complication., Methods: We retrospectively studied 13 patients which developed GBF after LSG performed between March 2007 and August 2012. Patients were separated into two groups: patients who had early gastric fistula which has evolved into a GBF (group 1) and patients who had a late gastric fistula, either directly GBF or a late gastric fistula evolved in GBF (group 2)., Results: Group 1 consisted of five patients and group 2 of eight patients. All patients were undernourished at diagnosis. Management of GBF was a combined thoraco-abdominal surgery with gastrojejunal anastomosis (n = 5) or total gastrectomy (n = 1), multiple endoscopic treatment and thoracic surgery (n = 3), an endobronchial valve (n = 1), total gastrectomy and thoracic drainage (n = 1), and transorificial intubation with thoracic surgery or drainage (n = 2). There was no mortality. All GBF healed., Conclusions: GBF after LSG is a serious complication which is not anecdotal. Most of the early gastric fistulas occuring after LSG become chronic and can evolve into a GBF. Surgical approach is an effective treatment. Endobronchial valve is a novel alternative.

The main complications following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is gastric fistula (GF). Gastric fistula is a rare but serious complication (affecting 2 % of LSGs). Somatostatin-14 and its analogs are mainly used in the prevention and curative treatment of digestive fistulas. These compounds inhibit secretions in the pancreas, stomach, and small intestine. Treatment with somatostatin-14 increases the spontaneous closure rate and reduces the closure time of postoperative digestive fistulas. However, the impact of somatostatin-14 on GF after LSG has not been studied. We report on a prospective, non-randomized, single-center, case-matched study of patients receiving somatostatin-14 after a post-LSG GF was discovered. Our results suggest that use of somatostatin-14 is associated with a shorter length of hospital stay and (perhaps) a shorter treatment period.

Background: Gastric fistula (GF) is a serious complication after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Furthermore, gastrobronchial fistula (GBF) may appear some time after a primary LSG. The objective of this study was to characterize GBF after LSG and establish standardized treatment procedures., Methods: All patients undergoing surgery for GBF after LSG at a public university medical center in France between November 2004 and January 2013 were included in this study. Surgical and perioperative care was standardized. The primary efficacy criterion was the complication rate. Secondary efficacy criteria were the mortality rate, surgical data, types of complications, and the length of stay (LOS) in hospital., Results: Six patients were treated for GBF after LSG: 2 presented GBF after primary LSG performed in our institution and 4 had been referred by tertiary centers. The median (range) time to onset of GBF after LSG was 136 days (99-238 d). Preoperative refeeding was performed in 5 cases. The median time interval between the discovery of GBF and its surgical treatment was 31 days (7-137 d). Five patients underwent simultaneous abdominal and thoracic procedures. The abdominal procedures consisted of total gastrectomy (n = 1) and 60-cm Roux-en-Y gastrojejunal anastomosis (n = 6). There were no postoperative mortalities. Four postoperative complications occurred (66.6%), 2 of which were postoperative fistulas (33.3%) requiring revisional surgery. The median time to oral refeeding was 10 days (8-65 d) and the median LOS was 14 days (13-25 d)., Conclusions: Our treatment of GBF is based on effective drainage with endoscopic procedures, allowing optimal preoperative refeeding before combined abdominal and thoracic surgery. For the abdominal procedure, we prefer a 60-cm Roux-en-Y gastrojejunal anastomosis to total gastrectomy, because the former is simpler and minimizes the long-term risk of postoperative malabsorption., (© 2013 American Society for Bariatric Surgery Published by American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery All rights reserved.)

Background: Gastric fistula (GF) is the most serious complication after longitudinal sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), with an incidence ranging from 0 to 5 %. In this context, concomitant upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has never been described. Here, we describe our experience of this situation and suggest a procedure for the standardized management of this life-threatening complication., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all patients having been treated for post-LSG UGIB in our university medical center between November 2004 and February 2012. Data on GF and UGIB (time to onset, diagnosis and management) were assessed., Results: Forty patients were treated for post-LSG GF in our institution, 18 of whom (45 %) had been referred by tertiary centers. Four patients presented UGIB (10 %): two had undergone primary LSG, one had undergone simultaneous gastric band removal and LSG, and one had undergone repeat LSG. The median time interval between GF and UGIB was 15 days. The four cases of UGIB included three pseudoaneurysms (75 %, with two affecting the left gastric artery and one affecting the upper pole of the splenic artery) and one case of bleeding related to stent-induced gastric ulceration. Computed tomography enabled diagnosis of the pseudoaneurysm in all cases. Two of the four patients (50 %) were treated with selective embolization during arteriography, and two (50 %) were treated surgically with arterial ligation. One of the surgically treated patients died during follow-up., Conclusions: UGIB after LSG was investigated in the context of a postoperative GF and was found to have been caused by a pseudoaneurysm in 75 % of cases. When looking for a pseudoaneurysm, a primary angiography should be preferred to endoscopy allowing selective arterial embolization in hemodynamically stable patients, whereas surgery should be reserved for treatment failures or hemodynamically instability.