Owaid M Almalki1,2, Wei-Jei Lee3, Jung-Chien Chen1, Kong-Han Ser1, Yi-Chih Lee4, Shu-Chun Chen1. 1. Department of Surgery, Min-Sheng General Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 2. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia. 3. Department of Surgery, Min-Sheng General Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan. wjlee_obessurg_tw@yahoo.com.tw. 4. Department of International Business, ChienHsin University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ten to 50% of patients who received restrictive bariatric operations may require reoperation for unsatisfactory weight loss or weight regain. Failed restrictive procedures are usually managed with conversion to another bariatric procedure with a favor of conversion to laparoscopic gastric bypass. Our aim is to evaluate two different bypass techniques, laparoscopic RY gastric bypass (RYGB) versus single-anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass (SAGB) as a revision option (R-RYGB and R-SAGB) for failed restrictive bariatric operations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From May 2001 to December 2015, a total of 116 patients with failed restrictive bariatric operations underwent laparoscopic revisional bypass surgery (81 R-SAGB and 35 R-RYGB). Among them, 81 were failed after vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) and 35 were after adjustable gastric band (AGB). The demographic data, surgical parameters, and outcomes were studied. RESULTS: The average age at revision surgery was 35.7 years (range 22-56), and the average body mass index (BMI) before reoperation was 37.2 kg/m2 (29.0-51.8). Revision surgery was performed after 58.8 months from the primary surgery on average (14-180 months). The main reasons for the revisions were weight regain (50.9%), inadequate weight loss (31%), and intolerance (18.1%). All of the procedures were completed laparoscopically as one-stage procedure. R-RYGB had significantly longer operative times than R-SAGB. Major complication occurred in 12 (10%) patients without significant difference between R-SAGB group and R-RYGB group. At 1 year follow-up, weight loss was better in R-SAGB than R-RYGB (76.8 vs. 32.9% EWL; p = 0.001). At 5 year follow-up, a significantly lower hemoglobin level was found in R-SAGB group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Both SAGB and RYGB are acceptable options for revising a restrictive type of bariatric procedures with equal safety profile. R-SAGB was shown to be a simpler procedure with better weight reduction than R-RYGB but anemia is a considerable complication at long-term follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Ten to 50% of patients who received restrictive bariatric operations may require reoperation for unsatisfactory weight loss or weight regain. Failed restrictive procedures are usually managed with conversion to another bariatric procedure with a favor of conversion to laparoscopic gastric bypass. Our aim is to evaluate two different bypass techniques, laparoscopic RY gastric bypass (RYGB) versus single-anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass (SAGB) as a revision option (R-RYGB and R-SAGB) for failed restrictive bariatric operations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From May 2001 to December 2015, a total of 116 patients with failed restrictive bariatric operations underwent laparoscopic revisional bypass surgery (81 R-SAGB and 35 R-RYGB). Among them, 81 were failed after vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) and 35 were after adjustable gastric band (AGB). The demographic data, surgical parameters, and outcomes were studied. RESULTS: The average age at revision surgery was 35.7 years (range 22-56), and the average body mass index (BMI) before reoperation was 37.2 kg/m2 (29.0-51.8). Revision surgery was performed after 58.8 months from the primary surgery on average (14-180 months). The main reasons for the revisions were weight regain (50.9%), inadequate weight loss (31%), and intolerance (18.1%). All of the procedures were completed laparoscopically as one-stage procedure. R-RYGB had significantly longer operative times than R-SAGB. Major complication occurred in 12 (10%) patients without significant difference between R-SAGB group and R-RYGB group. At 1 year follow-up, weight loss was better in R-SAGB than R-RYGB (76.8 vs. 32.9% EWL; p = 0.001). At 5 year follow-up, a significantly lower hemoglobin level was found in R-SAGB group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Both SAGB and RYGB are acceptable options for revising a restrictive type of bariatric procedures with equal safety profile. R-SAGB was shown to be a simpler procedure with better weight reduction than R-RYGB but anemia is a considerable complication at long-term follow-up.
Authors: Luigi Piazza; Francesco Ferrara; Silvana Leanza; Danilo Coco; Salvatore Sarvà; Angelo Bellia; Carla Di Stefano; Francesco Basile; Antonio Biondi Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2011-11-22
Authors: Ruben Schouten; Dorothee C Wiryasaputra; Francois M H van Dielen; Wim G van Gemert; Jan Willem M Greve Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Maurizio De Luca; Giacomo Piatto; Giovanni Merola; Jacques Himpens; Jean-Marc Chevallier; Miguel-A Carbajo; Kamal Mahawar; Alberto Sartori; Nicola Clemente; Miguel Herrera; Kelvin Higa; Wendy A Brown; Scott Shikora Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Kamal K Mahawar; Abdelrahman Nimeri; Marco Adamo; Cynthia-Michelle Borg; Rishi Singhal; Omar Khan; Peter K Small Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Nathan Poublon; Ibtissam Chidi; Martijn Bethlehem; Ellen Kuipers; Ralph Gadiot; Marloes Emous; Marc van Det; Martin Dunkelgrun; Ulas Biter; Jan Apers Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Radosław Cylke; Paweł Skrzypek; Paweł Ziemiański; Justyna Domienik-Karlowicz; Maciej Kosieradzki; Wojciech Lisik Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 1.195