nach oben

Obesity Surgery

Erschienen in:

Open Access 22.05.2023 | Original Contributions

Medium Term Outcomes of Revision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy after Gastric Banding: A Propensity Score Matched Study

verfasst von: Brenda W. Huang, Sarfraz S. Shahul, Marcus K.H. Ong, Oliver M. Fisher, Daniel L. Chan, Michael L. Talbot

Erschienen in: Obesity Surgery | Ausgabe 7/2023

Abstract

Purpose

Revision bariatric surgery may be undertaken after weight loss failure and/or complications following primary bariatric surgery. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RLSG) after gastric banding (GB) to those of primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (PLSG).

Materials and Methods

A retrospective, propensity-score matched study was conducted to compare between PLSG (control) patients and RLSG after GB (treatment) patients. Patients were matched using 2:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching without replacement. Patients were compared on weight loss outcomes and postoperative complications for up to five years.

Results

144 PLSG patients were compared against 72 RLSG patients. At 36 months, PLSG patients had significantly higher mean %TWL than RLSG patients (27.4 ± 8.6 [9.3–48.9]% vs. 17.9 ± 10.2 [1.7–36.3]%, p < 0.01). At 60 months, both groups had similar mean %TWL (16.6 ± 8.1 [4.6–31.3]% vs. 16.2 ± 6.0 [8.8–22.4)]%, p > 0.05). Early functional complication rates were slightly higher with PLSG (13.9% vs. 9.7%), but late functional complication rates were comparatively higher with RLSG (50.0% vs. 37.5%). The differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Both early (0.7% vs 4.2%) and late (3.5% vs 8.3%) surgical complication rates were lower in PLSG patients compared to RLSG patients but did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

RLSG after GB has poorer weight loss outcomes than PLSG in the short-term. Although RLSG may carry higher risks of functional complications, the safety of RLSG and PLSG are overall comparable.

Graphical abstract

Key Points

• A propensity score matched study that compares the outcomes of RLSG and PLSG.

• PLSG offers better weight loss results than RLSG in the short term.

• RLSG has a relatively higher rate of late functional complications.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

Gastric banding (GB) was once a popular procedure known for its simplicity and adjustability. GB is now less frequently performed due to poor long-term weight maintenance and associated band complications, which have necessitated revision surgery in up to 60.0% of patients [1‐4]. Whilst revision bariatric surgery may yield further weight loss (WL), it carries inherent risks as intra-abdominal adhesions and anatomical changes after primary GB will increase technical complexity [5, 6].

Options following failed GB include band replacement or conversion to other bariatric procedures. Whilst band replacement may resolve some complications, procedures which offer a broader spectrum of WL mechanisms, such as revision gastric bypass and revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RLSG) are preferred [7‐9]. There have been recent trends towards RLSG after GB failure, given its comparable WL results [10‐16]. Compared to the complication risks of revision gastric bypass, the complication risks of RLSG are similar in some studies [11, 16, 17] but lower in other studies [13, 15, 18, 19].

Although the results of RLSG after GB are promising, it is uncertain how they compare to those of primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (PLSG). Few comparative studies have assessed RLSG’s outcomes relative to PLSG’s, but the results were disparate and limited by poor follow-up and confounding biases. This study aimed to compare RLSG after GB to PLSG in terms of safety and WL efficacy in the short and medium term, using propensity score matching (PSM) to reduce bias.

Material and Methods

Study Design

A single-center, retrospective, propensity-score matched study was performed on patients who underwent RLSG after GB (treatment) and patients who underwent PLSG (control) from 2005 to 2019 at an Australian Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Centre of Excellence. These patients were identified through electronic medical records via billing code searches. Patients who underwent RLSG for insufficient weight loss (IWL) or weight regain (WR) after GB with or without band-related complications were included. IWL is defined as less than 50% excess weight loss (%EWL) 18 months postoperatively, and WR is progressive weight gain after an initial successful weight loss (>50%EWL) [20]. Patients who underwent RLSG for complications only were excluded. Patients were offered high resolution impedance manometry before RLSG; those with major peristaltic abnormalities, ineffective motility or pseudo-achalasia were offered Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as a preferred alternative. Patients with incomplete follow-up (<6 months post PLSG or RLSG) and history of other bariatric procedures before PLSG or RLSG, or major abdominal surgery were excluded.

Patient demographics, preoperative and postoperative anthropometric data, and postoperative complications were recorded. Postoperative complications were categorized based on time frame (early and late) and type (functional and surgical). Functional complications included dysphagia and new-onset reflux. Postoperative reflux was documented based on patient symptomatology, using the Visick scoring system [21]. Surgical complications included leaks and surgical site infections. Postoperative weight and body mass index (BMI) were collected to calculate change in BMI (ΔBMI), %EWL and percent total weight loss (%TWL), following the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery guidelines [22].

Two PLSG patients were matched to one RLSG patient using nearest neighbor PSM without replacement (caliper = 0.1). Patients were matched for age, sex, smoking history, preoperative BMI, and associated medical problems (diabetes and gastroesophageal reflux disease [GERD]). PSM was performed on R software, version 4.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) with “MatchIt” package.

Following the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality, parametric data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (range) and nonparametric data as median (range). Parametric and nonparametric data were analyzed using independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. Categorical data were presented as counts with corresponding percentages (%) and analyzed using Pearson’s Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test, where appropriate. All tests were 2-tailed and statistically significant if p < 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA).

This project was approved by the institutional human research advisory panel (approval number HC190695).

Procedure selection and pre-operative assessment

Patients presenting for the management of obesity at the time of this study were offered laparoscopic adjustable GB, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and or gastric bypass depending on patient preference and the presence of any contraindications to various procedures. The consent process involved shared decision making, whereby the preferences of the patient were taken into account. Severe reflux, diabetes, and BMI >50, for example, were reviewed as relative indications for gastric bypass ahead of other procedures. However, absolute contraindications to particular therapies were uncommon. Oesophageal dilation, Barrett’s oesophagus and large hiatus hernia were absolute contraindications to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic adjustable GB, whereas large ventral hernia and complex intra-abdominal adhesions were indications against gastric bypass unless the patient was prepared to undergo laparotomy.

PLSG patients did not undergo pre-operative endoscopy unless they had proton-pump inhibitor resistant reflux symptoms or dysphagia. The large majority of patients undergoing RLSG underwent 2-stage surgery (band removal followed by sleeve gastrectomy in two separate operations), which allowed clinical evaluation for reflux symptoms or post-GB oesophageal complications by high resolution impedance manometry after band removal or a contrast swallow if manometry was refused or not tolerated. Manometry and/or contrast swallows were also undertaken in the small group of patients undergoing 1-stage RLSG (band removal and sleeve gastrectomy in a single operation). Gastroscopy was also selectively undertaken in this cohort.

Surgical Technique

Under general anesthesia, the patient was positioned supine in reverse Trendelenburg position. Four laparoscopic ports and a Nathanson liver retractor (Cook Medical) were utilized. The esophageal hiatus was routinely inspected; if a hiatal hernia were detected, it was repaired anteriorly or posteriorly with a non-absorbable suture. An adhesiolysis and excision of GB pseudocapsule were performed to restore normal anatomy before gastric transection. The greater curvature of the stomach was mobilized from the pylorus to the hiatus, ensuring complete mobilization of the fundus. The stomach was then transected, typically using 6 x 60 mm laparoscopic staple firings over a 36 French bougie. Gastric division started 2-4 cm from the pylorus with the stapler kept deliberately wide of the bougie until beyond the angularis to prevent creating a functional stenosis. After completing the staple line and obtaining hemostasis, the gastric tube was sutured lightly to omental tissue for stabilization. The resected portion of stomach was removed via the right lateral port site before wound closure.

Results

991 PLSG patients and 72 RLSG patients met the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). A control group of 144 PLSG patients were selected using nearest neighbor PSM without replacement (ratio = 2:1; caliper = 0.1) (see Appendix, Table 6). The covariate balance before and after PSM is demonstrated in Fig. 2; the standardized mean differences for all covariates were below the threshold of 0.1 after PSM. Both groups were similar in baseline characteristics (Table 1) except for a higher prevalence of dyslipidemia amongst PLSG patients.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of patients in the primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy groups

	Overall	Patient groups		p
	Overall	PLSG	RLSG
N	216	144	72
Age, years*	45.5 ± 11.8 (18.4 – 75.4)	45.5 ± 11.9 (18.4 – 74.5)	45.3 ± 11.7 (23.1 – 75.4)	0.90
Female gender, n (%)	187 (86.6%)	125 (86.8%)	62 (86.1%)	0.89
Preoperative BMI, kg/m²*	42.6 ± 7.0 (30.1 – 69.2)	42.5 ± 6.5 (30.2 – 68.2)	42.7 ± 7.9 (30.1 – 69.2)	0.86
Smoking history** (n = 183)	64 (29.6%)	42 (29.2%)	22 (30.6%)	0.35
Associated Medical Problems
GERD, n (%)	69 (31.9%)	44 (30.6%)	25 (34.7%)	0.54
Type 2 diabetes mellitus, n (%)	34 (15.7%)	22 (15.3%)	12 (16.7%)	0.31
Hypertension, n (%)	77 (35.6)	54 (37.5%)	23 (31.9%)	0.42
Dyslipidemia, n (%)	69 (31.9%)	53 (36.8%)	16 (22.2)	0.03
Obstructive sleep apnea, n (%)	31 (14.5%)	23 (16.0%)	8 (11.4%)	0.38

N number of patients; BMI body mass index; GERD gastroesophageal reflux disease; PLSG primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; RLSG revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

*Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (range)

**Data on smoking history were only available for 183 patients

Within the RLSG group, 13 (18.1%) patients underwent revision for IWL or WR only while 59 (81.9%) underwent revision for IWL or WR and band-related complications (Table 2). Prerevision WL data were available for 50 RLSG patients, who had a mean %TWL of 23.4 ± 10.5 (2.1–57.9) % at nadir BMI post-GB. %TWL decreased to 5.9 ± 9.9 (-24.4–29.0) % at revision. All but one RLSGs were conducted in 2 stages; the median time interval between band removal and RLSG was 3.8 (2.1–57.4) months.

Table 2

Characteristics of patients in the revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy group

Variables	Statistics
Anthropometric data (N = 50)
Initial BMI before GB, kg/m²*	44.6 ± 6.6 (30.9 – 61.1)
Nadir BMI after GB, kg/m²*	33.8 ± 6.1 (22.4 – 51.6)
%TWL at nadir BMI after GB*	23.4 ± 10.5 (2.1 – 57.9)
%TWL at time of revision*	5.9 ± 9.9 (-24.4 – 29.0)
Band Complications (N = 59)
Dysphagia/ food intolerance, N (%)	27 (45.8%)
Pouch dilatation, N (%)	16 (27.1%)
GERD, N (%)	16 (27.1%)
Esophageal dilatation, N (%)	11 (18.6%)
Band slippage, N (%)	10 (16.9%)
Band erosion, N (%)	4 (6.8%)

N number of patients; BMI body mass index; %TWL percent total weight loss; GERD gastroesophageal reflux disease

*Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (range)

All PLSGs and RLSGs were performed laparoscopically. Hiatal hernia repair was performed in 71 (49.3%) PLSG cases and 37 (51.4%) RLSG cases. The follow-up rates were 79.2%, 79.2%, 62.0%, 37.5%, 32.9%, 22.2%, 13.9% and 7.9% at 3-, 6-, 12-, 24-, 36-, 48-, and 60-months, respectively.

Postoperative Complications

Postoperative complications in this study are listed in Table 3. The overall rates of surgical complications between PLSG patients and RLSG patients were not significantly different in the early (<30 days) postoperative period (0.7% vs 4.2%, p = 0.11) and in the late (>30 days) postoperative period (3.5% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.19). There were two staple line leaks in the RLSG group, which presented as intra-abdominal abscesses. One patient was managed with computed tomography-guided drainage. The other patient previously had band erosion; the leak was initially managed using endoscopic clips but recurred in the late postoperative period and required computed tomography-guided drainage.

Table 3

Complications after primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

	Overall	Patient groups		p
	Overall	PLSG	RLSG
N	216	144	72
Early functional complications, N (%)	27 (12.5%)	20 (13.9%)	7 (9.7%)	0.38
New-onset reflux	10 (4.6%)	10 (6.9%)	0 (0%)	0.03
Dysphagia	19 (8.8%)	13 (9.0%)	6 (8.3%)	0.87
Required endoscopic dilatation	2 (0.9%)	0 (0%)	2 (3.8%)	0.11
Stricture on endoscopy	1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.4)	0.33
Early surgical complications, N (%)	4 (1.9%)	1 (0.7%)	3 (4.2%)	0.11
Surgical site infection (conservative management)	2 (0.9%)	1 (0.7%)	1 (1.4%)	1.00
Staple line leak	2 (0.9%)	0 (0%)	2 (2.8%)	0.11
Late functional complications, N (%)	90 (41.7%)	54 (37.5%)	36 (50.0%)	0.08
New-onset reflux	66 (30.6%)	41 (28.5%)	25 (34.7%)	0.35
Intractable reflux requiring revision gastric bypass	3 (1.4%)	1 (0.7%)	2 (2.8%)	0.26
Dysphagia	40 (18.5%)	25 (17.4%)	15 (20.8%)	0.54
Required endoscopic dilatation	6 (2.8%)	2 (1.4%)	4 (5.6%)	0.10
Stricture at endoscopy	1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.4%)	0.33
Severe nausea and vomiting requiring enteral feeding	1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.4%)	0.33
Late surgical complications, N (%)	11 (5.1%)	5 (3.5%)	6 (8.3%)	0.19
Hiatal hernia repair	6 (2.8%)	3 (2.1%)	3 (4.2%)	0.40
Incisional hernia repair	4 (1.9%)	2 (1.4%)	2 (2.8%)	0.60
Staple line leak	1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.4%)	0.33

N number of patients; PLSG primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; RLSG revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

The rate of functional complications was relatively higher in the PLSG group in the early postoperative period (13.9% vs. 9.7%, p = 0.38). However, the rate of functional complications was comparatively higher in the RLSG group in late postoperative period (50.0% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.08). Nevertheless, these differences did not reach statistical significance. One RLSG patient developed severe nausea and vomiting, requiring enteral feeding. One RLSG patient had a stricture at the previous band tunnel that required 9 endoscopic balloon dilatations and eventually underwent revision gastric bypass 2.8 years postoperatively due to intractable dysphagia and reflux. One other RLSG patient and 1 PLSG patient also underwent revision gastric bypass after 1.7 and 9.0 years, respectively, due to intractable reflux. There was no mortality in this study.

Weight Loss

The mean preoperative BMIs were 42.5 ± 6.5 (29.0–68.2) kg/m² in the PLSG group and 42.7 ± 7.9 (30.1–69.2) kg/m² in the RLSG group (p = 0.86). Postoperative WL data are listed in Table 4. PLSG patients had greater mean ΔBMI, %EWL and %TWL than RLSG patients at 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months (p < 0.01). At 48 and 60 months, the differences in ΔBMI, %EWL and %TWL were insignificant (p > 0.05). A greater proportion of RLSG patients underwent further revision surgery for WL (12.5% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.01).

Table 4

Weight loss outcomes after primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

Time	Parameters	Overall	Patient Groups		p
			PLSG	RLSG
3 months	N (%)	171/216 (79.2%)	115/144 (79.9%)	56/72 (77.8%)	-
	BMI, kg/m²*	35.5 ± 6.0 (23.9 – 57.9)	34.8 ± 5.5 (23.9 – 54.8)	37.0 ±6.7 (26.8 – 57.9)	0.02
	ΔBMI, kg/m²*	7.1 ± 2.7 (-1.3 – 14.9)	7.6 ± 2.0 (3.5 – 13.3)	6.0 ± 3.4 (-1.3 – 14.9)	<0.01
	%EWL*	43.2 ± 18.0 (-26.1 – 122.0)	47.5 ± 16.2 (13.5 – 129.0)	34.3 ± 18.3 (-26.1 – 72.9)	<0.01
	%TWL*	16.5 ± 5.4 (-4.4 – 29.5)	18.0 ± 4.0 (6.8 – 29.5)	13.5 ± 6.6 (-4.4 – 26.9)	<0.01
6 months	N (%)	171/216 (79.2%)	118/144 (81.9%)	53/72 (73.6%)
	BMI, kg/m²*	33.0 ± 5.7 (22.3 – 52.8)	32.1 ± 5.3 (22.4 – 52.8)	35.0 ± 6.1 (22.9 – 51.5)	<0.01
	ΔBMI, kg/m²*	9.8 ± 3.1 (1.6 – 20.0)	10.3 ± 2.9 (4.8 – 20.0)	8.5 ± 3.4 (1.6 – 17.2)	<0.01
	%EWL*	59.3 ± 21.0 (11.5 – 150.9)	63.7 ± 19.5 (31.5 – 150.9)	49.4 ± 19.6 (11.5 – 124.0)	<0.01
	%TWL*	22.7 ± 6.1 (4.1 – 38.3)	24.3 ± 5.3 (11.9 – 38.3)	19.4 ± 6.4 (4.1 – 32.4)	<0.01
12 months	N (%)	134/216 (62.0%)	85/144 (59.0%)	49/72 (68.1%)	-
	BMI, kg/m²*	30.9 ± 5.8 (21.9 – 48.4)	29.9 ± 5.3 (21.9 – 48.4)	32.6 ± 6.1 (22.6 – 48.2)	0.01
	ΔBMI, kg/m²*	12.0 ± 4.5 (0.4 – 25.7)	13.0 ± 4.0 (4.2 – 25.7)	10.2 ± 4.8 (0.4 – 21.5)	<0.01
	%EWL*	70.8 ± 23.7 (7.5 – 123.8)	76.8 ± 21.2 (16.4 – 123.8)	60.2 ± 24.3 (7.5 – 121.7)	<0.01
	%TWL*	27.7 ± 8.5 (1.3 – 50.2)	30.2 ± 7.1 (8.3 – 50.2)	23.3 ± 9.1 (1.3 – 46.5)	<0.01
18 months	N (%)	81/216 (37.5%)	61/144 (42.4%)	20/72 (27.8%)	-
	BMI, kg/m²*	31.2 ± 5.8 (22.1 – 47.9)	30.3 ± 5.1 (22.6 – 47.9)	34.1 ± 6.9 (22.1 – 46.9)	0.01
	ΔBMI, kg/m²*	12.5 ± 5.2 (-0.25 – 27.6)	13.1 ± 4.7 (2.6 – 27.6)	10.9± 6.3 (-0.3 – 24.7)	0.10
	%EWL*	69.7 ± 24.5 (-1.2 – 117.7)	74.0 ± 22.1 (10.3 – 117.7)	56.6 ± 27.4 (-1.2 – 115.4)	<0.01
	%TWL*	28.3 ± 9.8 (-0.5 – 49.8)	29.9 ± 8.5 (5.2 – 47.7)	23.6 ± 11.8 (-0.5 – 49.8)	0.01
24 months	N (%)	71/216 (32.9%)	46/144 (31.9%)	25/72(34.7%)	-
	BMI, kg/m²*	32.3 ± 6.1 (20.9 – 46.4)	31.0 ± 5.4 (20.9 – 45.5)	34.8 ± 6.6 (23.8 – 46.4)	0.01
	ΔBMI, kg/m²*	11.3 ± 5.1 (-2.1 – 29.3)	12.5 ± 4.6 (3.6 – 29.3)	9.1 ± 5.4 (-2.1 – 24.4)	<0.01
	%EWL*	64.6 ± 26.7 (-10.8 – 146.5)	72.0 ± 24.1 (17.2 – 146.5)	51.0 ± 26.5 (-10.8 – 111.2)	0.01
	%TWL*	25.6 ± 9.5 (-4.6 – 45.7)	28.4 ± 7.7 (7.8 – 45.7)	20.3 ± 10.3 (-4.6 – 44.4)	<0.01
36 months	N (%)	48/216 (22.2%)	31/144 (21.5%)	17/72(23.6%)	-
	BMI, kg/m²*	32.1 ± 5.8 (22.9 – 49.0)	30.7 ± 4.4 (23.3 – 39.0)	34.7 ± 7.3 (22.9 – 49.0)	0.05
	ΔBMI, kg/m²*	10.4 ± 5.3 (0.8 – 31.3)	11.9 ± 5.1 (3.7 – 31.3)	7.6 ± 4.5 (0.8 – 14.4)	<0.01
	%EWL*	61.9 ± 27.4 (3.9 – 130.9)	69.0 ± 21.2 (24.8 – 111.4)	49.0 ± 32.9 (3.9 – 130.9)	0.01
	%TWL*	24.1 ± 10.2 (1.7 – 48.9)	27.4 ± 8.6 (9.3 – 48.9)	17.9 ± 10.2 (1.7 – 36.3)	<0.01
48 months	N (%)	30/216 (13.9%)	18/144 (12.5%)	12/72 (16.7%)	-
	BMI, kg/m²*	34.2 ± 5.1 (22.5 – 45.0)	34.5 ± 4.9 (25.7 – 45.0)	33.8 ± 5.7 (22.5 – 41.6)	0.75
	ΔBMI, kg/m²*	8.3 ± 4.7 (1.0 – 22.2)	9.0 ± 5.4 (1.0 – 22.2)	7.3 ± 3.2 (2.6 – 10.8)	0.04
	%EWL*	49.7 ± 28.4 (8.6 – 137.0)	48.2 ± 25.4 (8.6 – 95.8)	51.8 ± 33.4 (14.2 – 137.0)	0.75
	%TWL*	19.3 ± 9.8 (2.8 – 42.1)	20.3 ± 11.1 (2.8 – 42.1)	17.9 ± 7.9 (6.0 – 29.1)	0.54
60 months	N (%)	17/216 (7.9%)	12/144 (8.3%)	5/72 (6.9%)	-
	BMI, kg/m²*	35.4 ± 3.6 (26.4 – 40.4)	34.9 ± 3.3 (26.4 – 39.4)	36.5 ± 4.2 (29.8 – 40.4)	0.40
	ΔBMI, kg/m²*	7.1 ± 3.3 (1.9 – 12.0)	7.1 ± 3.6 (1.9 – 12.0)	7.1 ± 3.0 (3.8 – 11.0)	0.99
	%EWL*	40.5 ± 18.5 (12.2 – 89.3)	41.1 ± 20.1 (12.2 – 89.3)	39.1 ± 16.0 (20.9 – 62.7)	0.85
	%TWL*	16.5 ± 7.3 (4.6 – 31.3)	16.6 ± 8.1 (4.6 – 31.3)	16.2 ± 6.0 (8.8 – 22.4)	0.92

N number of patients at a time point out of the total number of patients; PLSG primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; RLSG revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; BMI body mass index; ΔBMI change in BMI; %EWL percent excess weight loss; %TWL percent total weight loss

*Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (range)

ΔBMI was highest at 18 months follow-up in both groups but decreased subsequently. Similarly, %EWL and %TWL peaked around 12–18 months postoperatively then decreased. This was accompanied by the increase in mean postoperative BMI from 12–60 months follow-up.

Discussion

PSM is a statistical technique utilized in observational studies to reduce treatment selection bias and better evaluate treatment effects, mimicking the effects of a randomized control trial [23]. In retrospective, non-randomized studies, comparison of treatment effects are difficult as there are confounding factors which have determined treatment assignment. PSM aims to distribute the baseline covariates, which may determine the probability of treatment assignment, between treatment subjects and control subjects [23]. This allows better comparison of outcomes between treatment subjects and control subjects within a cohort. Hence, PSM was used in this study to evaluate the effects of PLSG and RLSG after gastric banding.

Although PLSG’s efficacy and safety are well-established, RLSG’s outcomes may differ given the anatomical and histopathological changes to the stomach after GB. The rates of surgical complication rates were relatively higher in the RLSG group in the early and late postoperative periods, however the differences were not statistically significant. Other studies have reported insignificant differences in early and late complication rates between PLSG and RLSG [24‐28]. Notably, the rates of common major surgical complications after RLSG, such as staple line leaks (2.8%), strictures (1.4%) and bleeding (0.0%), were relatively low in this study. Postoperative bleeding occurs in 2.8% of 1-stage RLSGs and 4.3% of 2-stage RLSGs [29]. Staple line leaks occur in 5.8% of 1-stage RLSG cases and 2.8% of 2-stage RLSG cases [29]. Although RLSG leak rates reported in other studies were comparable to this study’s, no patients in this study required reoperation for leaks.

The low rate of surgical complications after PLSG and RLSG in this cohort mirrors other studies; however, the sample size is underpowered to pick up potential differences in major complications which could potentially occur more frequently in RLSG patients because of their greater operative complexity. RLSGs were conducted in 2 stages with a minimum duration of 2 months between band removal and RLSG. Some studies have suggested utilizing a 2-staged revision approach instead of 1-stage revision to allow inflammation from band removal to abate before RLSG, thereby reducing potential complication risks [27, 28, 30, 31]. Patient reassessment after LAGB removal also allowed the redirection of patients away from RLSG to gastric bypass if there were factors that would increase their likelihood of experiencing poorer functional outcomes.

In terms of functional complications, while more PLSG patients reported early reflux-like symptoms compared to RLSG patients (6.9% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.03), these symptoms could be related to differences in oesophageal compliance and sensitivity of PLSG patients with a surgically naïve oesophagus compared to RLSG patients who might be more habituated to oesophageal obstructive symptoms from previous gastric banding. Moreover, this could be due to the exclusion of gastric banding patients who had dysmotility diagnosed at preoperative assessment from undergoing RLSG. In the late postoperative period, while more RLSG patients reported new onset reflux, the difference was insignificant (34.7% vs. 28.5%, p = 0.35).

Most comparative studies did not specify the prevalence of GERD after RLSG in the late postoperative period. A French study [27] reported no cases of GERD in both groups postoperatively. In contrast, an Italian study [32] reported significantly higher rates of GERD in the RLSG group (9% mildly symptomatic, 23% severely symptomatic) than the PLSG group (1.3% mildly symptomatic, 3% severely symptomatic) in the long-term. The overall rate of new onset reflux in the late postoperative period (30.6%) is relatively high in this study, but rates of up to 36.0% have been reported in literature [33]. New-onset reflux symptoms after sleeve gastrectomy could be due to several pathophysiological changes, including increased intragastric pressure, esophageal dysmotility, decreased lower esophageal sphincter pressure and delayed gastric emptying [33‐37]. While changes to esophageal motility after GB could have predisposed RLSG patients to increased risks of reflux symptoms [38], efforts were made to prevent these patients from undergoing RLSG in this surgical practice.

This study noted poorer WL outcomes with RLSG in the short-term. PLSG patients achieved significantly greater %EWL and %TWL than RLSG patients at up to 36 months, thereafter the difference between the groups diminished. This coincided with the trends of weight regain, evidenced by reductions in ΔBMI, %EWL and %TWL around 18 months. Although such trends suggest comparable WL results between both procedures at middle-term follow-up, these results may not accurately reflect PLSG’s and RLSG’s WL efficacies given the smaller sample sizes at later follow-up, potentially resulting in attrition bias.

Current evidence on the WL outcomes of RLSG and PLSG (Table 5) are conflicting. Two cohort studies have found comparable %EWL between both groups at 2 years [28] and 3 years [39] postoperatively. This contradicts the findings of 2 series [27, 40], which showed consistently significant differences in %EWL in favor of PLSG at all time points up to 6 years follow-up. Other studies that utilized 1-stage RLSG found comparable %EWL between both groups from 1 year [26] up to 5 years [24] postoperatively. A long-term retrospective cohort study [41] found significantly higher percent excess BMI lost in the RLSG group at 6 years and 9 years follow-up. In contrast, a recent cross-matched study [42] found significant higher %EWL in the PLSG group in the short-term but similar %EWL between both groups in the long-term. However, the long-term results may have been influenced by the significant differences in follow-up durations between both groups [42]. Regardless, the long-term differences in WL efficacy between RLSG after GB and PLSG are unknown due to the lack of large, long-term, matched studies.

Table 5

Weight loss outcomes of primary and revisional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after gastric banding in 5 retrospective studies

Follow-up period	Studies	%EWL		p
Follow-up period	Studies	PLSG	RLSG	p
3 months	Barrett et al. (2014) [26]	34.7	31.8	0.18
3 months	Alqahtani et al. (2016) [24]	30.5	29.8	0.09
6 months	Barrett et al. (2014) [26]	48.0	41.9	0.07
	Alqahtani et al. (2016) [24]	43.7	44.5	0.26
	Silecchia et al. (2014) [28]	49.8	46.5	0.03
	Goitein et al. (2011) [39]	55.0	37.0	-
9 months	Barrett et al. (2014) [26]	52.0	46.7	0.25
1 year	Barrett et al. (2014) [26]	56.9	47.6	0.09
	Alqahtani et al. (2016) [24]	62.4	60.5	0.10
	Silecchia et al. (2014) [28]	78.2	66.4	<0.01
	Carandina et al. (2017) [40]	67.0	48.5	<0.01
	Goitein et al. (2011) [39]	73.0	53.0	-
2 years	Silecchia et al. (2014) [28]	78.0	78.5	<0.30
	Alqahtani et al. (2016) [24]	73.9	70.4	0.10
	Carandina et al. (2017) [40]	71.6	52.6	<0.01
	Goitein et al. (2011) [39]	84.0	51.0	-
3 years	Alqahtani et al. (2016)	79.1	81.3	0.50
	Carandina et al. (2017) [40]	72.1	51.2	<0.01
	Goitein et al. (2011) [39]	80.0	48.0	-
4 years	Alqahtani et al. (2016) [24]	83.6	79.2	0.37
4 years	Carandina et al. (2017) [40]	69.0	43.4	<0.01
5 years	Alqahtani et al. (2016) [24]	80.4	75.1	0.35
5 years	Carandina et al. (2017) [40]	63.5	37.0	<0.01
6 years	Carandina et al. (2017) [40]	57.2	29.0	0.04

%EWL percent excess weight loss; PLSG primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; RLSG revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

The WL outcomes of RLSG after GB in this study (49.0%EWL at 3 years, 39.1%EWL at 5 years) were similar those in a French study (52.6%EWL at 3 years, 37.0%EWL at 5 years) [40]. These results were less favorable than those reported in 2 larger studies (62.6%EWL at 3 years [27]; 75.1%EWL at 5 years [24]). A plausible explanation for this could be differences in patient selection. All RLSG patients in this study underwent revision for IWL and WR, whereas some patients in other studies underwent revision for complications only. Hence, there were differences in patients’ WL history. Weight loss failure with GB in our RLSG group could reflect poorer patient compliance to multidisciplinary intervention or underlying physiology contributing to resistance to WL.

Limitations

The propensity-score matched study design minimizes the degree of confounding bias compared to cohort studies. However, there could be underlying differences in unobservable or unknown covariates that were not matched for, potentially confounding the results. There were potential selection biases given the study’s retrospective nature and the small sample size of patients from a single institution. The pre-gastric band weights of 22 RLSG patients, who underwent gastric banding at other surgical centers, were unavailable. This could have potentially skewed the baseline characteristics of patients in the RLSG group. Another limitation was the loss to follow-up. Attrition bias could have influenced the differences or similarities in outcomes between the groups. Due to the lack of long-term data, no inferences on the long-term outcomes could be made. Larger long-term studies are needed to gain further insight into the safety and efficacy of RLSG after failed GB. Future studies should also take into consideration patients’ compliance to nutritional management as well as mental health issues which could also influence WL results.

Conclusion

While RLSG is relatively efficacious in achieving further WL after GB failure in the short-term, the outcomes are poorer compared to PLSG. The poorer weight loss results of RLSG compared to PLSG should be discussed with prospective patients seeking revision bariatric surgery for IWL or WR. Although the risks of surgical and functional complications were not significantly different between RLSG and PLSG patients in this study, adequate preoperative assessments should be conducted to exclude patients with GERD and esophageal dysfunction to reduce the risks of functional complications.

Declarations

Ethical Approval

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Low risk ethics approval was obtained from the institutional review board, approval number HC190695. For this type of study, generic consent for the use of de-identified information in low and negligible risk research projects was deemed appropriate by the institutional review board.

A generic consent for the use of de-identified information in low and negligible risk research projects was obtained from patients included in the study. Written informed consent from patients does not apply.

Conflict of Interest

A/Prof Michael L. Talbot receives payments and honoraria from Gore Medical, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, MSD and Device Technologies. The other authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Die Chirurgie

Print-Titel

Das Abo mit mehr Tiefe

Mit der Zeitschrift Die Chirurgie erhalten Sie zusätzlich Online-Zugriff auf weitere 43 chirurgische Fachzeitschriften, CME-Fortbildungen, Webinare, Vorbereitungskursen zur Facharztprüfung und die digitale Enzyklopädie e.Medpedia.

Bis 30. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr nur 199 € zahlen!

Jetzt informieren

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt testen ¹

Appendix

Table 6

Baseline characteristics of patients in the primary and revision sleeve gastrectomy groups before and after nearest neighbor propensity score matching (ratio = 2:1, caliper = 0.1, without replacement)

Variables	Unmatched cohort				Matched cohort
Variables	PLSG (N = 991)	RLSG (N = 74)	p	d	PLSG (N = 144)	RLSG (N = 72)	p	d
Propensity Score*	0.07 ± 0.03 (0.0 – 0.18)	0.09 ± 0.03 (0.02 – 0.14)	0.00	-0.56	0.09 ± 0.03 (0.01 – 0.14)	0.09 ± 0.03 (0.02 – 0.14)	0.83	0.00
Age, years*	44.6 ± 12.6 (13.5 – 75.7)	45.7 ± 11.9 (23.1 – 75.4)	0.44	0.10	45.5 ± 11.9 (18.4 – 74.5)	45.3 ± 11.7 (23.1 – 75.4)	0.90	0.02
Preoperative BMI, kg/m²*	43.9 ± 7.1 (28.7 – 78.5)	43.0 ± 7.9 (30.1 – 69.2)	0.28	0.12	42.5 ± 6.5 (30.2 – 68.2)	42.7 ± 7.9 (30.1 – 69.2)	0.86	0.03
Sex, N (%)
Female	737 (74.4%)	63 (85.1%)	0.05	0.27	125 (86.8%)	62 (86.1%)	1.00	0.02
Male	254 (25.6%)	11 (14.9%)	0.05	0.27	19 (13.2%)	10 (13.8%)	1.00	0.02
Smoking history, N (%)	414 (41.8%)	23 (31.1%)	0.09	0.22	42 (29.2%)	22 (30.6%)	1.00	0.03
GERD, N (%)	382 (38.5%)	26 (35.1%)	0.65	0.07	44 (30.6%)	25 (34.7%)	0.64	0.09
Diabetic status, N (%)
No diabetes	648 (65.4%)	56 (75.7%)	0.09	0.23	109 (75.7%)	55 (76.4%)	1.00	0.02
Type 2 diabetes mellitus	150 (15.1%)	13 (17.6%)	0.69	0.07	22 (15.3%)	12 (16.7%)	0.95	0.04
Insulin resistance	189 (19.1%)	5 (6.8%)	0.01	0.37	13 (9.0%)	5 (6.9%)	0.79	0.08
Type 1 diabetes mellitus	4 (0.4%)	0 (0.0%)	1.00	0.09	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	-	<0.01

*Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (range)

N number of patients; PLSG primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; RLSG revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; BMI body mass index; GERD gastroesophageal reflux disease

Bhandari M, Fobi MAL, Buchwald JN, et al. Standardization of Bariatric Metabolic Procedures: World Consensus Meeting Statement. Obes Surg. 2019;29(4):309–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-019-04032-x.CrossRefPubMed

Maciejewski ML, Arterburn DE, van Scoyoc L, et al. Bariatric Surgery and Long-term Durability of Weight Loss. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(11):1046–55. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2317.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

O’Brien PE, MacDonald L, Anderson M, Brennan L, Brown WA. Long-term outcomes after bariatric surgery: fifteen-year follow-up of adjustable gastric banding and a systematic review of the bariatric surgical literature. Ann Surg. 2013;257(1):87–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827b6c02.CrossRefPubMed

Park YH, Kim SM. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as revisional surgery for adjustable gastric band erosion. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014;24(9):593–600. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2013.0584.CrossRefPubMed

Chowbey PK, Soni V, Kantharia NS, Khullar R, Sharma A, Baijal M. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: Outcomes of a case-matched comparison of primary versus revisional surgery. J Minim Access Surg. 2018;14(1):52–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.JMAS_11_17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Stefanidis D, Malireddy K, Kuwada T, Phillips R, Zoog E, Gersin KS. Revisional bariatric surgery: perioperative morbidity is determined by type of procedure. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(12):4504–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3097-y.CrossRefPubMed

Elnahas A, Graybiel K, Farrokhyar F, Gmora S, Anvari M, Hong D. Revisional surgery after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: A systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(3):740–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2510-2.CrossRefPubMed

Keren D, Romano-Zelekha O, Rainis T, Sakran N. Revisional Bariatric Surgery in Israel: Findings from the Israeli Bariatric Surgery Registry. Obes Surg. 2019;29(11):3514–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-019-04018-9.CrossRefPubMed

Marin-Perez P, Betancourt A, Lamota M, Lo Menzo E, Szomstein S, Rosenthal R. Outcomes after laparoscopic conversion of failed adjustable gastric banding to sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Br J Surg. 2014;101(3):254–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9344.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Angrisani L, Vitiello A, Santonicola A, Hasani A, de Luca M, Iovino P. Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy as Revisional Procedures after Adjustable Gastric Band: 5-Year Outcomes. Obes Surg. 2017;27(6):1430–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-016-2502-8.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Carr WR, Jennings NA, Boyle M, Mahawar K, Balupuri S, Small PK. A retrospective comparison of early results of conversion of failed gastric banding to sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(2):379–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2014.07.021.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Coblijn UK, Verveld CJ, van Wagensveld BA, Lagarde SM. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as revisional procedure after adjustable gastric band—a systematic review. Obes Surg. 2013;23(11):1899–914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-013-1058-0.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Khan OA, McGlone ER, Maynard W, et al. Single-stage conversions from failed gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: results from the United Kingdom National Bariatric Surgical Registry. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018;14(10):1516–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2018.06.017.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Mendes-Castro A, Montenegro J, Cardoso JF, et al. Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Band: Complications, Removal and Revision in a Portuguese Highly Differentiated Obesity Treatment Center. Acta Med Port. 2015;28(6):735–40. https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.6369.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Yeung L, Durkan B, Barrett A, et al. Single-stage revision from gastric band to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy: 6- and 12-month outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(6):2244–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4498-x.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Moon RC, Teixeira AF, Jawad MA. Conversion of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: Sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass? Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;9(6):901–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2013.04.003.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Magouliotis DE, Tasiopoulou VS, Svokos AA, Svokos KA, Sioka E, Zacharoulis D. Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass versus Sleeve Gastrectomy as Revisional Procedure after Adjustable Gastric Band: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Obes Surg. 2017;27(5):1365–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-017-2644-3.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Carandina S, Maldonado PS, Tabbara M, et al. Two-step conversion surgery after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding. Comparison between laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic gastric sleeve. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10(6):1085–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2014.03.017.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Janik MR, Rogula TG, Mustafa RR, Alhaj Saleh A, Khaitan L. Safety of Revision Sleeve Gastrectomy Compared to Roux-Y Gastric Bypass After Failed Gastric Banding: Analysis of the MBSAQIP. Ann Surg. 2019;269(2):299–303. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000002559.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Nedelcu M, Khwaja HA, Rogula TG. Weight regain after bariatric surgery-how should it be defined? Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12(5):1129–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOARD.2016.04.028.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Visick AH. A study of the failures after gastrectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1948;3(5):266–84.

22.

Brethauer SA, Kim J, el Chaar M, et al. Standardized Outcomes Reporting in Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Obes Surg. 2015;25(4):587–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-015-1645-3.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Austin PC. An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786.CrossRef

24.

Alqahtani AR, Elahmedi MO, Al Qahtani AR, Yousefan A, Al-Zuhair AR. 5-year outcomes of 1-stage gastric band removal and sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12(10):1769–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2016.05.017.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Aminian A, Shoar S, Khorgami Z, Augustin T, Schauer PR, Brethauer SA. Safety of one-step conversion of gastric band to sleeve: a comparative analysis of ACS-NSQIP data. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(2):386–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2014.08.018.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Barrett AM, Vu KT, Sandhu KK, Phillips EH, Cunneen SA, Burch MA. Primary sleeve gastrectomy compared to sleeve gastrectomy as revisional surgery: weight loss and complications at intermediate follow-up. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(10):1737–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-014-2592-3.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Noel P, Schneck AS, Nedelcu M, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure for failed gastric banding: lessons from 300 consecutive cases. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10(6):1116–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2014.02.045.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Silecchia G, Rizzello M, De AF, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure for failed laparoscopic gastric banding with a “2-step approach”: a multicenter study. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10(4):626–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2013.10.017.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Dang JT, Switzer NJ, Wu J, et al. Gastric Band Removal in Revisional Bariatric Surgery, One-Step Versus Two-Step: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2016;26(4):866–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-016-2082-7.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Gangemi A, Russel S, Patel K, Khalaf H, Masrur M, Hassan C. Conversion to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after failure of laparoscopic gastric band: A systematic review of the literature and cost considerations. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2018;12(5):416–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orcp.2017.12.004.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Stroh C, Hohmann U, Schramm H, Meyer F, Manger T. Fourteen-year long-term results after gastric banding. J Obes. 2011;2011:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/128451.

32.

de Angelis F, Boru CE, Iossa A, Perotta N, Campanile FC, Silecchia G. Long-term outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure after failed gastric band: a multicenter cross-matched cohort study. Updates Surg. 2022;74(2):709–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-01182-5.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Oor JE, Roks DJ, Ünlü Ç, Hazebroek EJ. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2016;211(1):250–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.05.031.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Chang DM, Lee WJ, Chen JC, Ser KH, Tsai PL, Lee YC. Thirteen-Year Experience of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Surgical Risk, Weight Loss, and Revision Procedures. Obes Surg. 2018;28(10):2991–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-018-3344-3.CrossRefPubMed

35.

el Chaar M, Stoltzfus J, Claros L, Miletics M. Indications for Revisions Following 630 Consecutive Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Cases: Experience in a Single Accredited Center. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21(1):12–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-016-3215-y.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Genco A, Soricelli E, Casella G, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux disease and Barrett’s esophagus after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a possible, underestimated long-term complication. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13(4):568–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2016.11.029.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Quezada N, Hernandez J, Perez G, Gabrielli M, Raddatz A, Crovari F. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: experience in 50 patients after 1 to 3 years of follow-up. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12(8):1611–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2016.05.025.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Tchokouani L, Jayaram A, Alenazi N, Ranvier GF, Sam G, Kini S. The Long-Term Effects of the Adjustable Gastric Band on Esophageal Motility in Patients Who Present for Band Removal. Obes Surg. 2018;28(2):333–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-017-2842-z.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Goitein D, Feigin A, Segal-Lieberman G, Goitein O, Papa MZ, Zippel D. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional option after gastric band failure. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(8):2626–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1615-3.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Carandina S, Genser L, Bossi M, Polliand C, Tabbara M, Barrat C. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after failed gastric banding: is it really effective? Six years of follow-up. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13(7):1165–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2017.02.008.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Kraljević M, Cordasco V, Schneider R, et al. Long-term Effects of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: What Are the Results Beyond 10 Years? Obes Surg. 2021;31(8):3427–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-021-05437-3.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Sakran N, Soued S, Hod K, et al. Long-Term Matched Comparison of Primary and Revisional Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy. Obes Surg. 2023;33(3):695–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-022-06436-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Medium Term Outcomes of Revision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy after Gastric Banding: A Propensity Score Matched Study
verfasst von: Brenda W. Huang
Sarfraz S. Shahul
Marcus K.H. Ong
Oliver M. Fisher
Daniel L. Chan
Michael L. Talbot
Publikationsdatum: 22.05.2023
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Obesity Surgery / Ausgabe 7/2023
Print ISSN: 0960-8923
Elektronische ISSN: 1708-0428
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-023-06629-9

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Vorsicht, erhöhte Blutungsgefahr nach PCI!

10.05.2024 Koronare Herzerkrankung Nachrichten

Nach PCI besteht ein erhöhtes Blutungsrisiko, wenn die Behandelten eine verminderte linksventrikuläre Ejektionsfraktion aufweisen. Das Risiko ist umso höher, je stärker die Pumpfunktion eingeschränkt ist.

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

08.05.2024 Gesellschaft Nachrichten

In einer Leseranfrage in der Zeitschrift Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology möchte ein anonymer Dermatologe bzw. eine anonyme Dermatologin wissen, ob er oder sie einen Patienten behandeln muss, der eine rassistische Tätowierung trägt.

Deutlich weniger Infektionen: Wundprotektoren schützen!

08.05.2024 Postoperative Wundinfektion Nachrichten

Der Einsatz von Wundprotektoren bei offenen Eingriffen am unteren Gastrointestinaltrakt schützt vor Infektionen im Op.-Gebiet – und dient darüber hinaus der besseren Sicht. Das bestätigt mit großer Robustheit eine randomisierte Studie im Fachblatt JAMA Surgery.

Chirurginnen und Chirurgen sind stark suizidgefährdet

07.05.2024 Suizid Nachrichten

Der belastende Arbeitsalltag wirkt sich negativ auf die psychische Gesundheit der Angehörigen ärztlicher Berufsgruppen aus. Chirurginnen und Chirurgen bilden da keine Ausnahme, im Gegenteil.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Medium Term Outcomes of Revision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy after Gastric Banding: A Propensity Score Matched Study

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Graphical abstract

Key Points

Publisher’s Note

Introduction

Material and Methods

Study Design

Procedure selection and pre-operative assessment

Surgical Technique

Results

Postoperative Complications

Weight Loss

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Declarations

Ethical Approval

Conflict of Interest

Publisher’s Note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Die Chirurgie

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Appendix

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Vorsicht, erhöhte Blutungsgefahr nach PCI!

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Deutlich weniger Infektionen: Wundprotektoren schützen!

Chirurginnen und Chirurgen sind stark suizidgefährdet

Update Chirurgie

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Graphical abstract

Key Points

Publisher’s Note

Introduction

Material and Methods

Study Design

Procedure selection and pre-operative assessment

Surgical Technique

Results

Postoperative Complications

Weight Loss

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Declarations

Ethical Approval

Informed Consent

Conflict of Interest

Publisher’s Note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Die Chirurgie

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Appendix

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2023

Safety and Effect of Bariatric Metabolic Surgeries for Psychiatric Patients with Obesity: A Retrospective Matched Case–control Trial

Depression and Anxiety as Predictors of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Completion Among Ethnically Diverse Patients

Obesity and Cancer: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery Compared to Standard Laparoscopic Approach Using a Standardized Definition: First Look at the 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) Data

Changes in Fat-Free Mass, Protein Intake and Habitual Physical Activity Following Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery: A Prospective Study

Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery Is Associated with Increased Postoperative Complications Compared to Laparoscopic: a Nationwide Readmissions Database Study

Update Chirurgie