D Stefanidis1, K Malireddy, T Kuwada, R Phillips, E Zoog, K S Gersin. 1. Division of GI and MIS surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Simulation Center, Carolinas Weight Management, Carolinas Healthcare System, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive, Suite 300, Charlotte, NC, USA, dimitrios.stefanidis@carolinashealthcare.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Revisional bariatric procedures are on the rise. The higher complexity of these procedures has been reported to lead to increased risk of complications. The objective of our study was to compare the perioperative risk profile of revisional bariatric surgery with primary bariatric surgery in our experience. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing bariatric surgery by three fellowship-trained bariatric surgeons from June 2005 to January 2013 at a center of excellence was reviewed. Patient demographics, type of initial and revisional operation, number of prior gastric surgeries, indications for revision, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations were recorded. These outcomes were compared between revisional and primary procedures by the Mann-Whitney or Chi square tests. RESULTS: Of 1,556 patients undergoing bariatric surgery, 102 patients (6.5%) underwent revisional procedures during the study period. Indications for revisions included inadequate weight loss in 67, failed fundoplications with recurrent gastroesophageal reflux disease in 29, and other in 6 cases. Revisional bariatric procedures belonged into four categories: band to sleeve gastrectomy (n = 23), band to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 25), fundoplication to bypass (n = 29), and other (n = 25). Revisional procedures were associated with higher rates of readmissions and overall morbidity but no differences in leak rates and mortality compared with primary procedures. Band revisions had similar length of stay with primary procedures and had fewer complications compared with other revisions. Patients undergoing fundoplication to bypass revisions were older, had a higher number of prior gastric procedures, and the highest morbidity (40%) and reoperation (20%) rates. CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, many revisional bariatric procedures can be accomplished safely, with excellent perioperative outcomes that are similar to primary procedures. As the complexity of the revisional procedure and number of prior surgeries increases, however, so does the perioperative morbidity, with fundoplication revisions to gastric bypass representing the highest risk group.
BACKGROUND: Revisional bariatric procedures are on the rise. The higher complexity of these procedures has been reported to lead to increased risk of complications. The objective of our study was to compare the perioperative risk profile of revisional bariatric surgery with primary bariatric surgery in our experience. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing bariatric surgery by three fellowship-trained bariatric surgeons from June 2005 to January 2013 at a center of excellence was reviewed. Patient demographics, type of initial and revisional operation, number of prior gastric surgeries, indications for revision, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations were recorded. These outcomes were compared between revisional and primary procedures by the Mann-Whitney or Chi square tests. RESULTS: Of 1,556 patients undergoing bariatric surgery, 102 patients (6.5%) underwent revisional procedures during the study period. Indications for revisions included inadequate weight loss in 67, failed fundoplications with recurrent gastroesophageal reflux disease in 29, and other in 6 cases. Revisional bariatric procedures belonged into four categories: band to sleeve gastrectomy (n = 23), band to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 25), fundoplication to bypass (n = 29), and other (n = 25). Revisional procedures were associated with higher rates of readmissions and overall morbidity but no differences in leak rates and mortality compared with primary procedures. Band revisions had similar length of stay with primary procedures and had fewer complications compared with other revisions. Patients undergoing fundoplication to bypass revisions were older, had a higher number of prior gastric procedures, and the highest morbidity (40%) and reoperation (20%) rates. CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, many revisional bariatric procedures can be accomplished safely, with excellent perioperative outcomes that are similar to primary procedures. As the complexity of the revisional procedure and number of prior surgeries increases, however, so does the perioperative morbidity, with fundoplication revisions to gastric bypass representing the highest risk group.
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: Scott G Houghton; Lana G Nelson; James M Swain; Elizabeth M Nesset; Michael L Kendrick; Geoffrey B Thompson; Michel M Murr; Francis C Nichols; Michael G Sarr Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2005-08-31 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Dimitrios Stefanidis; Fernando Navarro; Vedra A Augenstein; Keith S Gersin; B Todd Heniford Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Kamal K Mahawar; Yitka Graham; William R J Carr; Neil Jennings; Norbert Schroeder; Shlok Balupuri; Peter K Small Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Ali Aminian; Mohammad Jamal; Toms Augustin; Ricard Corcelles; John P Kirwan; Philip R Schauer; Stacy A Brethauer Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Toms Augustin; Ali Aminian; Héctor Romero-Talamás; Tomasz Rogula; Philip R Schauer; Stacy A Brethauer Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.129