Search

Introduction : The performance characteristics of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) for weight recurrence after intragastric balloon (IGB) are unknown. Methods: This is a retrospective propensity score matched study of ESG after IGB (IGB-to-ESG) vs ESG without prior IGB (ESG-only). The primary outcome was total weight loss (TWL) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included TWL at 3 and 6 months, 12-month excess weight loss (EWL), procedural characteristics, and safety. Results: Thirty-nine adults underwent ESG from August 2020 to September 2022 after IGB explantation a median of 24 months (range 2–56 months) prior and a median post-IGB nadir weight increase of 100.0% (range 0 to 3200%). An ESG-only 2:1 age- sex- and BMI- propensity score matched cohort was derived from 649 patients (Pearson's goodness-of-fit: 0.86). TWL for IGB-to-ESG vs. ESG-only was 12.3 ± 13.5% vs. 12.4 ± 3.7% at 3 months (p = 0.97), 10.1 ± 7.1% vs. 15.4 ± 4.6% at 6 months (p < 0.001), and 8.7 ± 7.7% vs. 17.1 ± 5.7% at 12 months (p < 0.001). Twelve-month EWL for IGB-to-ESG vs ESG-only was 27.8 ± 46.9% vs 62.0 ± 21.0% (p < 0.001). There was no difference in mean procedural duration of ESG; however, more sutures were used with IGB-to-ESG vs. ESG-only (7 vs. 6, p < 0.0002). There were no serious adverse events in either cohort. Conclusion: ESG after IGB produces safe, acceptable weight loss but with an attenuated effect compared to ESG alone. Further study is required to understand the factors driving this discrepancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gastric sleeve stenosis (GSS) is reported in.7% to 4% of cases after sleeve gastrectomy. Two endoscopic balloon dilation techniques are available with no clear consensus on the therapeutic approach. To compare the treatment efficacy and safety between hydrostatic and pneumatic balloon dilations for GSS. Academic referral centers, United States and a meta-analysis. Consecutive patients who presented with GSS and underwent endoscopic hydrostatic and/or pneumatic balloon dilations at 3 tertiary care hospitals were included. Clinical success was defined as an improvement of symptoms that allowed the patient to avoid further interventions. A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant studies for meta-analysis. Of 46 patients, 13 had pneumatic dilation only, 26 had hydrostatic dilation only, and 7 had pneumatic dilation after failed hydrostatic dilation. Clinical success was not significantly different among the 3 groups with the success rates of 30.8%, 57.6%, and 57.1% (P =.25) after single dilation and 61.5%, 63.6%, and 71.4% (P =.90) after serial dilations in the pneumatic group, hydrostatic group, and pneumatic after failed hydrostatic group, respectively. Patients who failed hydrostatic balloon dilation (n = 7) had a success rate of 71.4% with subsequent pneumatic dilation. Two serious adverse events were observed in the pneumatic group, whereas none were observed in the hydrostatic group. A meta-analysis of 16 studies involving 360 patients demonstrated higher clinical success with single pneumatic balloon dilation compared with hydrostatic balloon dilation (62.2% versus 36.4%; P =.007) with higher adverse events (3 versus 0 events). Hydrostatic balloon dilation should be considered as an initial modality for GSS given its acceptable success rate and high safety profile. In those who fail hydrostatic balloon dilation, a subsequent step-up approach to pneumatic balloon dilation or revisional surgery should be attempted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]