Huseyin Yilmaz1, Ilhan Ece2, Mustafa Sahin1. 1. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Selcuk University, 42075, Konya, Turkey. 2. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Selcuk University, 42075, Konya, Turkey. ilhanece@yahoo.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) presents a challenging problem for bariatric surgeons. The aim of this study was to evaluate the indications, treatment strategies, and surgical outcomes of patients who underwent a revisional surgery after a failed LSG. METHODS: This retrospective study included the outcomes of 32 patients who required a revisional surgery from a series of 500 primary LSGs. The patients' demographic data, indications for revisional surgery, perioperative complications, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 500 patients underwent primary LSGs during the study period, and 32 of these patients were subjected to revisional bariatric surgery after a failed LSG. Weight regain, poor weight loss, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were the most common causes of revision. A revisional LSG (r-LSG) was performed in 23 patients, while 9 patients received a revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (r-LRYGB). There were complete sleeve pouch dilations in 10 patients. A residual fundus and antrum dilation was detected in 5 and 8 patients, respectively. The r-LRYGB procedure was performed for GERD-related symptoms in 6 patients and 3 other patients underwent r-LRYGB due to the intake of high-caloric foods. The mean operative time, length of hospital stay, and complication rates of revisional surgeries were significantly higher than the total cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Although r-LSG and r-LRYGB seem to be safe and effective treatment options after a failed LSG, revisional procedures were associated with an increased complication rate. Attention to technical details of the primary LSG may reduce the revision requirements.
BACKGROUND: A failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) presents a challenging problem for bariatric surgeons. The aim of this study was to evaluate the indications, treatment strategies, and surgical outcomes of patients who underwent a revisional surgery after a failed LSG. METHODS: This retrospective study included the outcomes of 32 patients who required a revisional surgery from a series of 500 primary LSGs. The patients' demographic data, indications for revisional surgery, perioperative complications, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 500 patients underwent primary LSGs during the study period, and 32 of these patients were subjected to revisional bariatric surgery after a failed LSG. Weight regain, poor weight loss, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were the most common causes of revision. A revisional LSG (r-LSG) was performed in 23 patients, while 9 patients received a revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (r-LRYGB). There were complete sleeve pouch dilations in 10 patients. A residual fundus and antrum dilation was detected in 5 and 8 patients, respectively. The r-LRYGB procedure was performed for GERD-related symptoms in 6 patients and 3 other patients underwent r-LRYGB due to the intake of high-caloric foods. The mean operative time, length of hospital stay, and complication rates of revisional surgeries were significantly higher than the total cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Although r-LSG and r-LRYGB seem to be safe and effective treatment options after a failed LSG, revisional procedures were associated with an increased complication rate. Attention to technical details of the primary LSG may reduce the revision requirements.
Authors: Antonio Iannelli; Anne Sophie Schneck; Patrick Noel; Imed Ben Amor; Daniel Krawczykowski; Jean Gugenheim Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Martina de Zwaan; Anja Hilbert; Lorraine Swan-Kremeier; Heather Simonich; Kathy Lancaster; L Michael Howell; Tim Monson; Ross D Crosby; James E Mitchell Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2009-09-03 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Nicolas V Christou; John S Sampalis; Moishe Liberman; Didier Look; Stephane Auger; Alexander P H McLean; Lloyd D MacLean Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Maria Paula Carlin Cambi; Giorgio Alfredo Pedroso Baretta; Daniéla De Oliveira Magro; Cesar Luiz Boguszewski; Igor Braga Ribeiro; Pichamol Jirapinyo; Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-01-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Sarah B Cairo; Indrajit Majumdar; Aurora Pryor; Alan Posner; Carroll M Harmon; David H Rothstein Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Daniel M Felsenreich; Lukas M Ladinig; Philipp Beckerhinn; Christoph Sperker; Katrin Schwameis; Michael Krebs; Julia Jedamzik; Magdalena Eilenberg; Christoph Bichler; Gerhard Prager; Felix B Langer Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.129