BACKGROUND: A considerable number of patients require revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Studies that compared the outcomes of revisional sleeve gastrectomy (r-SG) and revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (r-RYGB) after failed LAGB are scarce in the literature. Our objective was to determine whether significant differences exist in outcomes between r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB. METHODS: From 2005 to 2012, patients who underwent laparoscopic r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB were retrospectively compared and analyzed. Data included demographics, indication for revision, operative time, hospital stay, conversion rate, percentage excess weight loss (%EWL), and morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Out of 693 bariatric procedures, 42 r-SG and 53 r-RYGB were performed. The median preoperative weight (107.7 and 117.7 kg, respectively, p = 0.02) and body mass index (BMI) (38.5 vs. 43.2 kg/m(2), respectively, p = 0.01) were statistically significantly lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB. The mean operative time and median hospital stay were significantly shorter in r-SG than in r-RYGB (108.4 vs. 161.2 min, p < 0.01) (2 vs. 3 days, p = 0.02), respectively. One patient underwent conversion to open surgery after r-RYGB (p = 0.5). The reoperation rate was lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB (0.0 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.5). There was one postoperative leak in the r-RYGB, and the overall complication rate was significantly lower in r-SG patients than in r-RYGB patients (7.1 vs. 20.8 %, p = 0.05). The mean follow-up was significantly shorter in the r-SG group (9.8 vs. 29.3 months, p < 0.01). However, the mean postoperative BMI was not different at 1 year (32.3 vs. 34.7, p = 0.29) as well as mean %EWL was (47.4 vs. 45.6 %, p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Both r-SG and r-RYGB are safe procedures with similar outcomes in terms of %EWL. As a result of the long-term potential nutritional complication of r-RYGB, r-SG may be a better option in this group of patients. Longer follow-up is needed.
BACKGROUND: A considerable number of patients require revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Studies that compared the outcomes of revisional sleeve gastrectomy (r-SG) and revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (r-RYGB) after failed LAGB are scarce in the literature. Our objective was to determine whether significant differences exist in outcomes between r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB. METHODS: From 2005 to 2012, patients who underwent laparoscopic r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB were retrospectively compared and analyzed. Data included demographics, indication for revision, operative time, hospital stay, conversion rate, percentage excess weight loss (%EWL), and morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Out of 693 bariatric procedures, 42 r-SG and 53 r-RYGB were performed. The median preoperative weight (107.7 and 117.7 kg, respectively, p = 0.02) and body mass index (BMI) (38.5 vs. 43.2 kg/m(2), respectively, p = 0.01) were statistically significantly lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB. The mean operative time and median hospital stay were significantly shorter in r-SG than in r-RYGB (108.4 vs. 161.2 min, p < 0.01) (2 vs. 3 days, p = 0.02), respectively. One patient underwent conversion to open surgery after r-RYGB (p = 0.5). The reoperation rate was lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB (0.0 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.5). There was one postoperative leak in the r-RYGB, and the overall complication rate was significantly lower in r-SG patients than in r-RYGB patients (7.1 vs. 20.8 %, p = 0.05). The mean follow-up was significantly shorter in the r-SG group (9.8 vs. 29.3 months, p < 0.01). However, the mean postoperative BMI was not different at 1 year (32.3 vs. 34.7, p = 0.29) as well as mean %EWL was (47.4 vs. 45.6 %, p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Both r-SG and r-RYGB are safe procedures with similar outcomes in terms of %EWL. As a result of the long-term potential nutritional complication of r-RYGB, r-SG may be a better option in this group of patients. Longer follow-up is needed.
Authors: Cornelis Adrianus Sebastianus Berende; Jean-Paul de Zoete; Johannes Franciscus Smulders; Simon Willem Nienhuijs Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Matthew J Martin; Philip S Mullenix; Scott R Steele; Craig S See; Daniel G Cuadrado; Preston L Carter Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Peter T Hallowell; Thomas A Stellato; David A Yao; Ann Robinson; Margaret M Schuster; Kristen N Graf Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: G Fantola; P L Nguyen-Thi; N Reibel; M A Sirveaux; A Germain; A Ayav; L Bresler; R Zarnegar; L Brunaud Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Louise Yeung; Brandice Durkan; Allison Barrett; Cary Kraft; Kim Vu; Edward Phillips; Scott Cunneen; Miguel Burch Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 4.584