Search Results (18)

Background: Surgical complications are devastating both for patients and treating surgeons. When complications occur after bariatric procedures, due to specific characteristics of this population, management, although multidisciplinary, should always be led by a surgical team. Methods: We present major complications treated at our general surgery service over a seven-year period. Case series: We present five cases that were treated at our service after a bariatric procedure was performed. Two patients were operated on in another country and two more at another service. Three patients showed perforation and leak-related complications. One patient died due to refeeding syndrome complications after revisional surgery. Conclusions: Optimal preoperative evaluations and surgical planning are mandatory for any type of surgery including bariatric procedures, and attempting adequate and well-established surgical techniques extensively described in the medical literature is associated with better outcomes. It is also our understanding that easy channels of communication between patients and treating surgeons could avoid delays in detecting and treating life-threatening conditions. Full article

Background: Revisional bariatric surgery for recurrent weight gain is becoming more common, though it carries higher risks and may be less effective than primary bariatric surgery. This study compares clinical outcomes between primary and revisional duodenal switch (DS) in patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 55 kg/m². Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 20 patients who underwent either primary or revisional duodenal switch (DS) surgeries, including biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPDDS) and Single-Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy (SADI-s), between January 2015 and December 2023. Revisional DS was defined as the conversion from Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) to either BPDDS (C-BPDDS) or SADI-S (C-SADI-S). Perioperative and postoperative variables were analyzed. A statistical analysis was performed using chi-square and McNemar tests for categorical variables and Student’s t-test for continuous variables. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results: Eleven primary DS patients (six BPDDS, five SADI-s) and nine revisional DS patients (five C-BPDDS, four C-SADI-s) were included. The revisional group had a slightly higher preoperative BMI (57.56 ± 5.92 kg/m² vs. 55.93 kg/m² ± 6.91 kg/m²). Although operative times were shorter in the revisional group (153.20 ± 53.26 vs. 193.27 ± 46.79 min), the length of stay was longer (2.70 ± 1.25 vs. 2.18 ± 1.16 days). Primary DS patients experienced three minor late complications (dehydration, nephrolithiasis), whereas the revisional group had one major complication (internal hernia requiring reoperation). At the 12-month follow-up, both groups demonstrated similar outcomes in terms of percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) (primary DS: 25.25% ± 12.38 vs. revisional DS: 30.31% ± 10.79) and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) (primary DS: 48.41% ± 22.93 vs. revisional DS: 53.24% ± 14.48). Conclusions: Revisional DS was associated with shorter operation times and similar weight loss to primary DS. Additionally, it was accomplished safely and led to adequate and sustained weight loss in patients with a BMI greater than 55 kg/m². Full article

Background: Drains are often placed during bariatric procedures; however, their use in conversional or revisional bariatric surgery (CRBS) has not been thoroughly explored. Our study sought to identify the frequency of drain placement in CRBS, and characterize factors associated with drain placement and their influence on 30-day serious complications. Methods: Patients undergoing CRBS between 2020 and 2022 were included from the MBSAQIP database. Patients were placed into drain placed (DP) versus no drain (ND) cohorts and baseline characteristics and complication rate were compared. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors of drain placement and complications. Results: of 64,495 included patients, drains were placed in 19.1% in 2020; this was down to 14.4% in 2022. Drain placement was associated with increased risk of multiple complications such as hemorrhage, readmission, surgical site infection, and gastrointestinal bleeding. On multivariate analysis, drain placement was an independent predictor of serious complications (aOR 1.45, p < 0.001), anastomotic leak (aOR 2.25, p < 0.001), organ space infection (aOR 2.12, p < 0.001), and reoperation (aOR 1.37, p < 0.001), as well as excess LOS (aOR 2.06, p < 0.001). Predictors of drain placement include older age, higher BMI, smoking status, history of venous thromboembolism, and procedural factors, such as undergoing non-sleeve revisional surgery or having an intraoperative leak test. Conclusions: Drain placement during CRBS surgical procedures is common and more likely in higher risk patients and anastomotic revisional procedures. Though the reasons for drain placement were not available, these data suggest that surgeons should be judicious in selecting patients for drain placement due to its association with increased LOS and postoperative morbidity in CRBS. Full article

Weight regain (WR) after bariatric surgery, particularly sleeve gastrectomy, is a significant challenge, often driven by a combination of metabolic, behavioral, and lifestyle factors. Non-surgical interventions to manage WR are critical, given the increased risks and reduced efficacy of revisional surgeries. In this context, very low-calorie ketogenic diets (VLCKDs) have gained attention for their potential to promote weight loss and improve body composition in individuals struggling with WR. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of a VLCKD in 11 patients who experienced WR following sleeve gastrectomy. Over an 8-week period, patients demonstrated a significant average weight loss of 6.3% (p = 0.005), along with improvements in body composition, including reductions in body fat percentage (p = 0.003) and waist circumference (p = 0.003). Metabolic markers, such as insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), also improved significantly (p = 0.041). Although a decrease in the glomerular filtration rate was observed (p = 0.007), this finding is unlikely to be clinically relevant over the short term. Importantly, no major adverse events were reported, with only mild constipation observed. These results suggest that VLCKDs may be a promising non-surgical approach for managing WR post-bariatric surgery, though further studies are needed to assess long-term effects, especially on renal function. Full article

Background: The use of a single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (SADI) as a revisional procedure in patients with pre-operative GERD is not well understood. Thirty-day outcomes in patients with pre-existing GERD undergoing revision with an SADI have not been previously reported. Methods: The Metabolic and Bariatric Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program registry was consulted to identify patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery with an SADI between 2020 and 2021. Our analysis sought to determine if preoperative GERD had significant impact on thirty-day outcomes. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of 30-day morbidity. Results: Preoperative GERD was seen in 342 patients (36.7%). Preoperative GERD was not associated with anastomotic leak (2.5% non-GERD cohort vs. 1.2% GERD cohort; p = 0.2) nor bleeding (1% non-GERD cohort vs. 1.8% GERD cohort; p = 0.33). There was no difference in thirty-day readmission (5.6% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.9), reintervention (2.4% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.2), or reoperation (3.6% vs. 2.05%; p = 0.19) rates. The multivariable regression analysis revealed that a history of myocardial infarction was associated with a significantly elevated risk of serious complication (OR 12.2; 95% CI 2.79–53.23; p = 0.001), as was dyslipidemia (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.04–4.56; p = 0.04). Conclusions: Pre-operative GERD does not have any association with anastomotic leak, bleeding, thirty-day readmission, reintervention, or reoperation in patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery to SADI. A history of myocardial infarction and dyslipidemia are independent predictors of post-operative thirty-day morbidity, irrespective of the presence of preoperative GERD. Full article

Revisional metabolic and bariatric surgery (RMBS) presents unique challenges in addressing weight loss failure or complications arising from initial bariatric procedures. This review aims to explore the complexities and solutions associated with revisional bariatric procedures comprehensively, offering insights into the evolving terrain of metabolic and bariatric surgery. A literature review is conducted to identify pertinent studies and expert opinions regarding RMBS. Methodological approaches, patient selection criteria, surgical techniques, preoperative assessments, and postoperative management strategies are synthesized to provide a comprehensive overview of current practices and advancements in the field, including institutional protocols. This review synthesizes key findings regarding the challenges encountered in RMBS, including the underlying causes of primary procedure failure, anatomical complexities, technical considerations, and assessments of surgical outcomes. Additionally, patient outcomes, complication rates, and long-term success are presented, along with institutional approaches to patient assessment and procedure selection. This review provides valuable insights for clinicians grappling with the complexities of RMBS. A comprehensive understanding of patient selection, surgical techniques, preoperative management, and postoperative care is crucial for enhancing outcomes and ensuring patient satisfaction in the field of metabolic bariatric surgery. Full article

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the most effective therapeutic intervention for patients with obesity, with sleeve gastrectomy (SG) being the most commonly performed primary MBS procedure. Long-term studies have demonstrated that 15–20% of patients require revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) due to weight-related issues or surgical complications. Despite the gold standard being laparoscopic revision, there are other available approaches such as open or robotic-assisted. An extensive literature review was performed for articles from their inception to February 2024. A descriptive review of MBS procedures (SG, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), single anastomosis duodeno-ileostomy (SADI) and biliopancreatic diversion-duodenal switch (BPD-DS)) was carried out to report and compare outcomes between primary and revisional bariatric surgery. A similar review was conducted to compare outcomes of revisional approaches (open, laparoscopic, robotic). RYGB remains the dominant RBS with a similar safety profile compared to revisional SADI and BPD-DS. In terms of the RBS surgical approach, all three options showed comparable short and long-term outcomes, with robotic RBS being associated with longer operative time and variable length of stay. Additional long-term studies are required to further validate our conclusions. Full article

This article examines the evolution of bariatric surgery, with a focus on emerging technologies such as robotics and laparoscopy. In the case of gastric bypass, no significant differences have emerged between the two techniques in terms of hospitalization duration, weight loss, weight regain, or 30-day mortality. Robotic surgery, while requiring more time in the operating room, has been associated with lower rates of bleeding, mortality, transfusions, and infections. In revisional bariatric surgery, the robotic approach has shown fewer complications, shorter hospital stays, and a reduced need for conversion to open surgery. In the case of sleeve gastrectomy, robotic procedures have required more time and longer postoperative stays but have recorded lower rates of transfusions and bleeding compared to laparoscopy. However, robotic surgeries have proven to be more costly and potentially more complex in terms of postoperative complications. The review has also addressed the topic of the single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal switch (SADIS), finding comparable results between robotic and laparoscopic techniques, although robotic procedures have required more time in the operating room. Robotic technology has proven to be safe and effective, albeit with slightly longer operative times in some cases. Full article

After a failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been proposed as revisional surgery. Those patients that receive a second restrictive procedure fall into a small subgroup of patients with more than one restrictive procedure (MRP). If also the second restrictive procedure fails, the correct surgical strategy is a challenge for the surgeon. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) may be an option but there is no evidence in the literature on whether the procedure is effective in treating failures after MRP. This study aims to evaluate the influence of the previous number of restrictive interventions (MRP vs single LSG) in the results of RYGB as revisional surgery. We have retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent conversion from laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), or from multiple restrictive procedures (MRP), to RYGB for weight regain (WR) or insufficient weight loss (IWL) between 2009 and 2019. The number of patients analyzed was 69 with conversion to RYGB after LSG and 44 after MRP. The reduction of excess weight (%TWL) at 3, 6, 12, 24 RYGB postoperative months was respectively of 11.03%, 16.39%, 21.43%, and 24.22% in the MRP group, and of 10.97%, 16.4%, 21.22%, and 22.71% in the LSG group. No significant difference was found in %TWL terms after RYGB for the MRP group and the LSG group with an overall %TWL, which was 11.00 ± 6.03, 16.40 ± 8.08, 21.30 ± 9.43, and 23.30 ± 9.91 respectively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The linear regression model highlighted a positive relationship between the %EWL post-bypass at 24 months and the time elapsed only between the LSG and RYGB in the MRP group patients (p < 0.001). RYGB has proved to be a reliable technique with good results in terms of weight loss after failed bariatric surgery both in patients who previously underwent MRP and in those who underwent exclusively LSG. RYGB showed better results in patients who experienced WR than in those who had IWL from previous techniques. Full article

Background: One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is an emerging metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) type used in both primary OAGB (pOAGB) and revisional OAGB (rOAGB). We studied ≤30-day outcomes of pOAGB and rOAGB and identified predictors of early complications. Methods: Electronic medical records of all OAGBs performed between January 2017 and December 2021 at a high-volume bariatric clinic in Israel comprising four hospital centers were scanned retrospectively using specialized data software (MDClone software, version 6.1). Data gathered were patients’ characteristics, surgical procedure, and ≤30-day complications with Clavien–Dindo Classification (CDC). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors related to early complications of pOAGB and rOAGB. Results: A total of 6722 patients underwent a pOAGB (n = 5088, 75.7%) or rOAGB (n = 1634, 24.3%) procedure at our institution. Preoperative mean age and body mass index (BMI) were 40.6 ± 11.5 years and 41.2 ± 4.6 kg/m², respectively. Early complications occurred in 258 (3.8%) patients (176 pOAGB and 82 rOAGB) and included mainly bleeding (n = 133, 2.0%), leaks (n = 31, 0.5%), and obstruction/strictures (n = 19, 0.3%). CDC complications for grades 1–2 and grades 3a-–5 were 1.5% and 1.6%, respectively. The overall mortality rate was 0.03% (n = 2). Age, operative time ≥3 h, and any additional concomitant procedure were independent predictors of early complications following pOAGB, while a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and operative time ≥3 h were independent predictors of early complications following rOAGB. Conclusions: OAGB was found to be a safe primary and revisional MBS procedure in the ≤30-postoperative day term. The most common complications were gastrointestinal bleeding, leaks, and obstruction/stricture. Full article

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a chronic medical condition that results in significant health implications and reduced life expectancy. The International Diabetes Federation (IDF) estimated that in 2021, 51.8% of all deaths of people under 60 years old in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region were related to diabetes. Bariatric surgery has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective treatment for T2D in different populations worldwide, though few specific data exist on outcomes of procedures in the MENA region. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and postoperative outcomes between patients with and without T2D undergoing primary bariatric surgery at a tertiary referral academic medical center in the United Arab Emirates. Methods: All patients who underwent primary metabolic surgery between September 2015 and July 2020 were retrospectively reviewed from a prospective database. Group 1 included patients with T2D, and Group 2 included patients without T2D. Patients undergoing revisional or correctional operations were excluded. The procedure performed was based on surgeon discretion in discussion with a multidisciplinary team and the patient. Demographics as well as perioperative and postoperative results were examined. Results: Our study included 542 patients, 160 (29.5%) with T2D and 382 (70.5%) with non-T2D. Mean age was 44.5 years (range 16–70) in the T2D group and 33.3 years (range 15–63) in the non-T2D group; median BMI was 41.8 ± 7.3 and 43.2 ± 7.2, respectively. The T2D group was 37.5% male and 62.5% female, and the non-T2D group was 38.7% male and 61.3% female. There were no significant differences in comorbidities. In the T2D group, 45.6% of patients underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 54.4% sleeve gastrectomy. In the non-TD2 group, 42.7% of patients received Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 57.3% sleeve gastrectomy. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative ED visits (21.8% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.21), minor complications within 30 days (4.3% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.67), readmission rates (5.6% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.77), re-operation rates (3.7% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.11), median hospital stay (2.0 days vs. 3.0, p = 0.05), or complications after 30 days (6.2% vs. 11.2%, p = 0.07). There were no deaths either group. Conclusions: In this cohort of patients from the MENA region, bariatric surgery in T2D patients is safe and effective, with perioperative outcomes comparable to those of non-T2D patients. To the best of our knowledge, our postoperative findings, which are the first report in the MENA region, are consistent with studies published in North America and Europe. Full article

Background and Objectives: Although the technical simplicity of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is relatively well understood, many parts of the procedure differ according to bariatric surgeons. These technical variations may impact postoperative weight loss or the treatment of comorbidities and lead to qualification for redo procedures. Materials and Methods: A multicenter, observational, retrospective study was conducted among patients undergoing revision procedures. Patients were divided into three groups based on the indications for revisional surgery (insufficient weight loss or obesity-related comorbidities treatment, weight regain and development of complications). Results: The median bougie size was 36 (32–40) with significant difference (p = 0.04). In 246 (51.57%) patients, the resection part of sleeve gastrectomy was started 4 cm from the pylorus without significant difference (p = 0.065). The number of stapler cartridges used during the SG procedure was six staplers in group C (p = 0.529). The number of procedures in which the staple line was reinforced was the highest in group A (29.63%) with a significant difference (0.002). Cruroplasty was performed in 13 patients (p = 0.549). Conclusions: There were no differences between indications to redo surgery in terms of primary surgery parameters such as the number of staplers used or the length from the pylorus to begin resection. The bougie size was smaller in the group of patients with weight regain. Patients who had revision for insufficient weight loss were significantly more likely to have had their staple line oversewn. A potential cause could be a difference in the size of the removed portion of the stomach, but it is difficult to draw unequivocal conclusions within the limitations of our study. Full article

Background: Obesity is a chronic disease that impairs quality of life and leads to several comorbidities. When conservative therapies fail, bariatric surgical options such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are the most effective therapies to induce persistent weight loss. Over the last two decades, bariatric endoscopy has become a valid alternative to surgery in specific settings. Primary bariatric endoscopic therapies: Restrictive gastric procedures, such as intragastric balloons (IGBs) and endoscopic gastroplasty, have been shown to be effective in inducing weight loss compared to diet modifications alone. Endoscopic gastroplasty is usually superior to IGBs in maintaining weight loss in the long-term period, whereas IGBs have an established role as a bridge-to-surgery approach in severely obese patients. IGBs in a minority of patients could be poorly tolerated and require early removal. More recently, novel endoscopic systems have been developed with the combined purpose of inducing weight loss and improving metabolic conditions. Duodenal mucosal resurfacing demonstrated efficacy in this field in its early trials: significant reduction from baseline of HbA1c values and a modest reduction of body weight were observed. Other endoscopic malabsorptive have been developed but need more evidence. For example, a pivotal trial on duodenojejunal bypasses was stopped due to the high rate of severe adverse events (hepatic abscesses). Optimization of these more recent malabsorptive endoscopic procedures could expand the plethora of bariatric patients that could be treated with the intention of improving their metabolic conditions. Revisional bariatric therapies: Weight regain may occur in up to one third of patients after bariatric surgery. Different endoscopic procedures are currently performed after both RYGB and SG in order to modulate post-surgical anatomy. The application of argon plasma coagulation associated with endoscopic full-thickness suturing systems (APC-TORe) and Re-EndoSleeve have shown to be the most effective endoscopic treatments after RYGB and SG, respectively. Both procedures are usually well tolerated and have a very low risk of stricture. However, APC-TORe may sometimes require more than one session to obtain adequate final results. The aim of this review is to explore all the currently available primary and revisional endoscopic bariatric therapies focusing on their efficacy and safety and their potential application in clinical practice. Full article

Obesity is a chronic relapsing disease of global pandemic proportions. In this context, an increasing number of patients are undergoing bariatric surgery, which is considered the most effective weight loss treatment for long-term improvement in obesity-related comorbidities. One of the most popular bariatric surgeries is the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Despite its proven short- and long-term efficacy, progressive weight regain and dumping symptoms remain a challenge. Revisional bariatric surgery is indicated when dietary and lifestyle modification, pharmaceutical agents and/or psychological therapy fail to arrest weight regain or control dumping. However, these re-interventions present greater technical difficulty and are accompanied by an increased risk of peri- and postoperative complications with substantial morbidity and mortality. The endoscopic approach to gastrojejunal anastomotic revision, transoral outlet reduction (TORe), is used as a minimally invasive treatment that aims to reduce the diameter of the gastrojejunal anastomosis, delaying gastric emptying and increasing satiety. With substantial published data supporting its use, TORe is an effective and safe bariatric endoscopic technique for addressing weight regain and dumping syndrome after RYGB. Full article

Few studies have evaluated the association between non-clinical and clinical determinants in terms of discontinuing follow-up after bariatric surgery. This cohort study aims to assess these associations. Data were collected from a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent laparoscopic bariatric surgery from January 2012 to December 2019. The Cox model was used to assess the influence of preoperative determinants on follow-up interruptions for more than one year. Multilevel logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between clinical factors and post-operative weight loss with the regularity of follow-up. During the study period, 9607 consultations were performed on 1549 patients. The factors associated with a follow-up interruption from more than 365 days included male gender (HR = 1.323; CI = 1.146–1.527; p = 0.001) and more recent years of intervention (HR = 1.043; CI = 1.012–1.076; p = 0.0068). Revisional bariatric surgery was associated with a lower risk of follow-up interruption (HR = 0.753; CI = 0.619–0.916; p = 0.0045). Independent risk factors of an irregular follow up were higher age (HR = 1.01; CI = 1.002–1.017; p = 0.0086); male gender (OR = 1.272; CI = 1.047–1.545; p = 0.0153); and higher %TWL (Total Weight Loss) (OR = 1.040 CI = 1.033–1.048 p < 0.0001). A higher preoperative BMI (OR = 0.985; CI = 0.972–0.998; p = 0.0263) and revisional surgery (OR = 0.707; CI = 0.543–0.922; p = 0.0106) were protective factors of irregularity. This study suggests that the male gender and most recent dates of surgery are the two independent risk factors for follow-up interruption. Older age, male gender, and higher weight loss were all independent risk factors of an irregular follow-up. Revision bariatric surgery is a protective factor against interruption and irregular follow-up with a higher preoperative BMI. Further studies are needed to obtain long-term results in these patients with discontinued follow-ups. Full article