Revised sleeve gastrectomy: another option for weight loss failure after sleeve gastrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is becoming a very common bariatric procedure, based on several advantages it carries over more complex bariatric procedures such as gastric bypass or duodenal switch (DS), and a better quality of life over gastric banding. However, in the long-term follow-up, weight loss failure and intractable severe reflux after primary LSG can necessitate further surgical interventions, and revisional sleeve gastrectomy (ReSG) can represent an option to correct these.
METHODS: From October 2008 to June 2013, 36 patients underwent an ReSG for progressive weight regain, insufficient weight, or severe gastroesophageal reflux in 'La Casamance' Private Hospital. All patients with weight loss failure after primary LSG underwent radiological evaluation. If Gastrografin swallow showed a huge unresected fundus or an upper gastric pouch dilatation, or if the computed tomography (CT) scan volumetry revealed a gastric tube superior to 250 cc, ReSG was proposed.
RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (34 women, two men; mean age 41.3 years) with a body mass index (BMI) of 39.9 underwent ReSG. Thirteen patients (36.1 %) had their original LSG surgery performed at another hospital and were referred to us for weight loss failure. Twenty-four patients (66.6 %) out of 36 had a history of gastric banding with weight loss failure. Thirteen patients (36.1 %) were super-obese (BMI > 50) before primary LSG. The LSG was realized for patients with morbid obesity with a mean BMI of 47.1 (range 35.4-77.9). The mean interval time from the primary LSG to ReSG was 34.5 months (range 9-67 months). The indication for ReSG was insufficient weight loss for 19 patients (52.8 %), weight regain for 15 patients (41.7 %), and 2 patients underwent ReSG for invalidating gastroesophageal reflux disease. In 24 cases the Gastrografin swallow results were interpreted as primary dilatation, and in the remaining 12 cases results were interpreted as secondary dilatation. The CT scan volumetry was realized in 21 cases, and it has revealed a mean gastric volume of 387.8 cc (range 275-555 cc). All 36 cases were completed by laparoscopy with no intraoperative incidents. The mean operative time was 43 min (range 29-70 min), and the mean hospital stay was 3.9 days (range 3-16 days). One perigastric hematoma was recorded. The mean BMI decreased to 29.2 (range 20.24-37.5); the mean percentage of excess weight loss was 58.5 % (±25.3) (p < 0.0004) for a mean follow-up of 20 months (range 6-56 months).
CONCLUSIONS: The ReSG may be a valid option for failure of primary LSG for both primary or secondary dilatation. Long-term results of ReSG are awaited to prove efficiency. Further prospective clinical trials are required to compare the outcomes of ReSG with those of Roux en Y Gastric Bypass or DS for weight loss failure after LSG.