Search

Background: Few studies on series comparing sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after failure of gastric banding (GB) are available. The objective of this study was to compare the short- and medium-term outcomes of SG and RYGB after GB., Materials and Methods: Between January 2006 and December 2017, patients undergoing SG (n = 186) or RYGB (n = 107) for failure of primary GB were included in this two-center study. Propensity-score matching was performed based on preoperative factors with a 2:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was the weight loss at 2 years between the SG and RYGB groups. Secondary endpoints were overall mortality and morbidity, reoperation, correction of comorbidities and the rate of adverse events at 2 years follow-up., Results: In our propensity score matching analysis, operative time was significantly less in the SG group (95 min vs. 179 min; p < 0.001). Post-operative complications were lower in the SG group (9.5% vs. 35.4%; p = 0.003). At 2 years follow-up, the mean EWL was similar as same as comorbidities. There was a significant difference in favor of SG concerning the rate of adverse events at 2 years follow-up (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Revision of GB by SG or RYGB is feasible, with a higher rate of early post-operative complications for RYGB. Weight loss at 2 years follow-up is similar; however, RYGB appears to result in a higher rate of adverse events than SG.

Background: Series comparing gastric banding (GB) removal and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) when procedures are performed as a 1- or a 2-step approach are contradictory in their outcomes. No series comparing these approaches with midterm weight loss is available., Objectives: Compare the outcomes and weight loss of SG performed as 1- and 2-step approaches as a revisional procedure for GB failure., Setting: University Hospital, France, public practice., Methods: Between February 2006 and January 2017, all patients undergoing SG with a previous history of implementation of GB (n = 358) were included in this 2-center, retrospective, observational study. Revisional surgery was proposed in patients with insufficient excess weight loss (excess weight loss ≤50%) or weight regain after GB. A 1-step (1-step group, n = 270) or 2-step (2-step group, n = 88) approach was decided depending on patient's choice and/or surgeon's preference. The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of weight loss in the 1- and 2-step groups at the 2-year follow-up. The secondary efficacy endpoints were short-term outcomes (overall mortality and morbidity at postoperative day 30, specific morbidity, reoperation, length of hospital stay, and readmission)., Results: In the 1-step group, the mean preoperative body mass index before SG was 40.5 kg/m 2 (27.0-69.0), while in the 2-step group, the mean preoperative body mass index was 43.5 kg/m 2 (31.5-61.7). Mean operating time was 109 minutes (50-240) in the 1-step group and 78.7 minutes (40-175) in the 2-step group (P = .22). In the 1-step group, 6 conversions to laparotomy occurred, while in the 2-step group, 2 conversions to laparotomy occurred (P = .75). One death (.2%, in the 2-step group) and 39 complications (30 in the 1-step group [11.1%] and 9 in the 2-step group [10.2%]) also occurred. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.2 days in the 1-step group and 4.1 days in the 2-step group. At 2-year follow-up, mean body mass index was 32.4 kg/m 2 in the 1-step group and 33.2 kg/m 2 in the 2-step group (P = .15), representing excess weight losses of 61.9 and 50.1 (P = .05), respectively. The rates of revisional surgery were .7% and 2.2%, respectively., Conclusions: SG after previous GB is efficient with similar outcomes depending on the 1- or 2-step approach. The 1-step approach seems to have increased weight loss compared with the 2-step approach., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Gastric band slippage with formation of a gastric pouch is a frequent complication after gastric banding. There is no consensus on the treatment of this condition, which differs within and between centers. Here, we describe our treatment of a large gastric pouch after gastric band slippage. Despite removal of the band, the pouch caused oral feeding intolerance., Methods: The video shows our treatment of large gastric pouch following gastric banding and surgical revision. A 45-year-old woman with history of gastric banding was referred to our center for persistent oral feeding intolerance following gastric band removal., Results: We found that a large gastric pouch was responsible for extrinsic compression and thus required revisional surgery after optimization of the patient's nutritional status. Video endoscopy revealed a large gastric pouch, which was responsible for oral feeding intolerance. Intra-operative exploration then revealed major adhesions, which had probably caused the pouch to form. During surgery that was somewhat analogous to sleeve gastrectomy, we removed the adhesions and resected the gastric pouch. The operating time was 70 min. An uneventful postoperative course enabled rapid discharge (on postoperative day 2)., Conclusion: The formation of a large gastric pouch is a rare complication of chronic gastric band slippage. Following nutritional optimization, surgery is required.

Background: Day-case surgery (DCS) has boomed over recent years, as has laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for the treatment of morbid obesity. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of day-case SG., Methods: This was a prospective, nonrandomized study of 100 patients undergoing day-case SG from May 2011 to July 2013. All patients met the criteria for DCS and for the treatment of morbid obesity. Standard surgical, anesthetic, and analgesic protocols were used. The primary study endpoint was the unplanned overnight admission rate. Secondary endpoints were standard DCS criteria, frequency and type of complications, and satisfaction rate of performing day-case SG. The short-term postoperative course of patients undergoing day-case and conventional SG also were compared., Results: A total of 416 patients were screened and 100 (24%) were included. There were 8 unplanned overnight admissions. Seven unexpected consultations, 7 hospital readmissions, and 5 major complications were recorded, including 3 cases of unexpected surgery for gastric leak. At follow-up, 96% of the patients were satisfied with day-case SG. The short-term postoperative course was similar among patients undergoing DCS and conventional management., Conclusion: In selected patients, day-case SG is feasible with acceptable complication and readmission rates. The postoperative course was similar to that observed for standard SG., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is a validated procedure for the surgical treatment of morbid obesity. Cirrhosis is often considered a relative contraindication to elective extrahepatic surgery. The objective of this study was to evaluate the morbidity related to SG performed in cirrhotic patients compared with noncirrhotic patients., Methods: Between March 2004 and January 2013, we included all patients with cirrhosis undergoing SG (13 patients). These patients (SG-cirrhosis group) were matched in terms of preoperative data (age, gender, body mass index, and co-morbidities) on a 1:2 basis, with 26 noncirrhotic patients (SG group) selected from a population of 750 patients. Cirrhosis was diagnosed postoperatively on histologic exam. The primary endpoint was the overall postoperative complication rate. Secondary endpoints were operating time, revisional surgery rate, gastric fistula and bleeding rates, postoperative mortality, and weight loss over a 24-month period., Results: The SG-cirrhosis group consisted of 13 patients with a median age of 52 years. All patients in the SG-cirrhosis group were Child A. Etiology of cirrhosis was related to NASH in 93.3%. Median operating time in the SG-cirrhosis group and SG group was 75 minutes versus 80 minutes (P = .59). No postoperative mortality was observed in either group. The overall postoperative complication rate was 7.7% versus 7.7% (P = 1). The major complication rate was 0% versus 7.7% (P = .22), and the postoperative gastric fistula rate was 0% versus 3.8% (P = .47). No complications related to cirrhosis were reported., Conclusion: SG can be performed in Child A cirrhosis with no increased risk of postoperative complications and no specific complications related to cirrhosis. Weight loss for patients with cirrhosis undergoing SG is similar to that observed in noncirrhotic patients., (© 2013 American Society for Bariatric Surgery Published by American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery All rights reserved.)

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.

Longitudinal sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been validated for the treatment of morbid obesity. However, treatment failures can appear several months after SG. Additional malabsorptive surgery is generally recommended in such cases. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the outcomes of repeat SG (re-SG) relative to first-line SG. This was a retrospective study included 15 patients underwent re-SG after failure of first-line SG (i.e. University Hospital, France; Public Practice). These patients were matched (for age, gender, body mass index and comorbidities) 1:2 with 30 patients having undergone first-line SG. The efficacy criteria comprised intra-operative data and postoperative data. The overall study population comprised 45 patients. The re-SG and first-line SG groups did not differ significantly in terms of median age (p = NS). The median BMI was similar in the two groups (43 kg/m(2) vs. 42.3 kg/m(2), p = NS). The two groups were similar in terms of the prevalence of comorbidities. The mean operating time was longer in the re-SG group (116 vs. 86 min; p ≤ 0.01). The postoperative complication rate was twice as high in the re-SG group (p = 0.31). Two patients in the re-SG group developed a gastric fistula (p = 0.25) and one of the latter died. At 12 months, the Excess Weight Loss was 66% (re-SG group) and 77% (first-line SG group) (p = 0.05). Re-SG is feasible but appears to be associated with a greater risk of complications. Nevertheless, re-SG can produce results (in terms of weight loss), equivalent to those obtained after first-line SG.

The placement of a gastric band (GB) prior to a sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) would increase postoperative complications, whether it is withdrawn or not at the time of the LSG. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate and compare postoperative morbidity and outcome weight for simultaneous GB removal (RGB) and LSG (the RGB + LSG group) and front-line LSG only (the LSG group) after unsuccessful GB. From May 2005 to May 2009, 305 patients underwent first- or second-line LSG at Amiens University Hospital. The primary endpoint was the postoperative complication rate (according to the Clavien classification) in the RGB + LSG and LSG groups. The secondary endpoints were intra-operative data, postoperative data, and weight loss over a period of 2 years (body mass index, percentage of excess weight loss, and percentage of excess body mass index (BMI) loss). Univariate and multivariate propensity score analyses were used to search for independent risk factors for postoperative complications. The RGB + LSG group (n = 46) had a mean age of 42 and a mean BMI of 44 kg/m(2). The indication for surgery was renewed weight gain or insufficient weight loss in 68 % of these cases. The LSG group (n = 259) had a mean age of 41 and a mean BMI of 49.2 kg/m(2). All procedures were performed laparoscopically. The complication rate was 8.6 % in the RGB + LSG group and 8 % in the SG group (p = 0.42). The fistula rates in the two groups were 4.3 and 3.4 %, respectively (p = 0.56), and the mean BMI at 2 years was 33.4 kg/m(2) (RGB + LSG group) and 34.4 kg/m(2), respectively (p = 0.83). The operating time for LSG (after subtracting the time associated with RGB for a combined procedure) averaged 107 min, whereas the operating time for front-line LSG was 89 min (p = 0.011). The propensity score analysis failed to find independent risk factors for postoperative complications. The performance of RGB + LSG is feasible and does not increase the postoperative morbidity rate. Weight loss after RGB + LSG validates the concept of "restrictive surgery after restrictive surgery". We did not find any independent risk factors that would have justified the avoidance of RGB + SG.