Alistair J Sharples1, Vasileios Charalampakis2, Markos Daskalakis2, Abd A Tahrani3,4,5, Rishi Singhal2. 1. Department of Upper GI Surgery, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. alsharples@yahoo.co.uk. 2. Department of Upper GI Surgery, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. 3. Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. 4. Institute of Metabolic and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 5. Centre of Endocrinology Diabetes and Metabolism, Birmingham Health Partners, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB)-related complications have been reported in significant numbers of patients often leading to band removal. Increasingly revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is offered, most commonly either band to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (B-RYGB) or band to sleeve gastrectomy (B-SG). OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to evaluate the efficacy of RBS following failed LAGB. METHODS: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and NHS Evidence were searched for English language studies assessing patients who had undergone LAGB and who subsequently underwent either B-RYGB or B-SG. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 2617 patients. B-RYGB was performed in 60.5% (n = 1583). There was one death within 30 days (0.0004%). The overall pooled morbidity rate was 13.2%. There was no difference between the B-RYGB and B-SG groups in morbidity, leak rate or return to theatre. Percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) following the revisional procedure for all patients combined at 6, 12 and 24 months was 44.5, 55.7 and 59.7%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in %EWL between B-RYGB and B-SG at any time point. The rates of remission of diabetes, hypertension and obstructive sleep apnoea were 46.5, 35.9 and 80.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) do not exist on this issue but the available observational evidence does suggest that RBS is associated with generally good outcomes similar to those experienced after primary surgery. Further, high-quality research, particularly RCTs, is required to assess long-term weight loss, comorbidity and quality of life outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB)-related complications have been reported in significant numbers of patients often leading to band removal. Increasingly revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is offered, most commonly either band to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (B-RYGB) or band to sleeve gastrectomy (B-SG). OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to evaluate the efficacy of RBS following failed LAGB. METHODS: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and NHS Evidence were searched for English language studies assessing patients who had undergone LAGB and who subsequently underwent either B-RYGB or B-SG. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 2617 patients. B-RYGB was performed in 60.5% (n = 1583). There was one death within 30 days (0.0004%). The overall pooled morbidity rate was 13.2%. There was no difference between the B-RYGB and B-SG groups in morbidity, leak rate or return to theatre. Percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) following the revisional procedure for all patients combined at 6, 12 and 24 months was 44.5, 55.7 and 59.7%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in %EWL between B-RYGB and B-SG at any time point. The rates of remission of diabetes, hypertension and obstructive sleep apnoea were 46.5, 35.9 and 80.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) do not exist on this issue but the available observational evidence does suggest that RBS is associated with generally good outcomes similar to those experienced after primary surgery. Further, high-quality research, particularly RCTs, is required to assess long-term weight loss, comorbidity and quality of life outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adjustable gastric band; Revisional bariatric surgery
Authors: Torgeir T Søvik; Erlend T Aasheim; Osama Taha; My Engström; Morten W Fagerland; Sofia Björkman; Jon Kristinsson; Kare I Birkeland; Tom Mala; Torsten Olbers Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-09-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: J Picot; J Jones; J L Colquitt; E Gospodarevskaya; E Loveman; L Baxter; A J Clegg Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Viktoria L Gloy; Matthias Briel; Deepak L Bhatt; Sangeeta R Kashyap; Philip R Schauer; Geltrude Mingrone; Heiner C Bucher; Alain J Nordmann Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-10-22
Authors: Vanessa Falk; Caroline Sheppard; Aliyah Kanji; Daniel Birch; Shazeer Karmali; Christopher de Gara Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Kamal K Mahawar; Jacques M Himpens; Scott A Shikora; Almino C Ramos; Antonio Torres; Shaw Somers; Bruno Dillemans; Luigi Angrisani; Jan Willem M Greve; Jean-Marc Chevallier; Pradeep Chowbey; Maurizio De Luca; Rudolf Weiner; Gerhard Prager; Ramon Vilallonga; Marco Adamo; Nasser Sakran; Lilian Kow; Mufazzal Lakdawala; Jerome Dargent; Abdelrahman Nimeri; Peter K Small Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Rosa Marti-Fernandez; Norberto Cassinello-Fernandez; Maria Desamparados Cuenca-Ramirez; Maria Lapeña-Rodriguez; Maria Carmen Fernandez-Moreno; Raquel Alfonso-Ballester; Joaquin Ortega-Serrano Journal: Obes Facts Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 3.942
Authors: André Pereira; André Costa Pinho; Hugo Santos Sousa; Eduardo Lima da Costa; Sara Rodrigues; Elisabete Barbosa; John Preto Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Theodoros Thomopoulos; Michele Podetta; Anne-Sophie Studer; Henri Atlas; Radu Pescarus; Ronald Denis; Pierre Y Garneau Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: M I Cooiman; L Kleinendorst; E O Aarts; I M C Janssen; H K Ploos van Amstel; A I Blakemore; E J Hazebroek; H J Meijers-Heijboer; B van der Zwaag; F J Berends; M M van Haelst Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 4.129