Lionel Rebibo1, Abdennaceur Dhahri1, Brice Robert2, Jean-Marc Regimbeau3. 1. Department of Digestive Surgery, Amiens University Hospital, Amiens, France. 2. Department of Radiology, Amiens University Hospital, Amiens, France. 3. Department of Digestive Surgery, Amiens University Hospital, Amiens, France; EA4294, Jules Verne University of Picardie, Amiens, France; Clinical Research Center, Amiens University Hospital, Avenue René Laennec, Amiens, France. Electronic address: regimbeau.jean-marc@chu-amiens.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few series are available concerning repeat sleeve gastrectomy (re-SG), and series have reported contradictory results concerning morbidity rates, with limited data concerning weight loss. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the short- and medium-term outcomes of re-SG. SETTING: University hospital, France, public practice. METHODS: Between June 2007 and March 2016, all patients undergoing re-SG (n = 46 patients) were included. Re-SG was proposed for patients with insufficient excess weight loss (EWL) (≤50%) or renewed weight gain with excessively high residual gastric volume (>250 mL and/or large gastric pouch). The primary efficacy endpoint was the overall complication rate of re-SG. The secondary efficacy endpoints were operative data, evaluation of weight loss, and correction of co-morbidities, risk factors for gastric leak (GL), by comparing 2 periods (period 1, January 2004-December 2013: blue/green or purple staplers without reinforcement; period 2, after December 2013: black staplers with reinforcement) and comparison of weight loss according to the indication for re-SG. RESULTS: The re-SG group consisted of 46 patients (35 women, mean age: 47.5 yr). The mean body mass index (BMI) before SG was 47.2 kg/m² (35-63.6). The mean time interval between SG and re-SG was 73 months (11-106). The BMI before re-SG was 41.2 kg/m² (29-54.7). Indications for surgery were insufficient weight loss in 25 patients (54.3%) and weight regain in 21 patients (45.7%). A large gastric pouch was visible in 4 patients (8.6%). The mean operating time was 97.6 minutes (45-220). One death (2.1%) and 7 complications (15.2%) were observed. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.6 days (1-30). At last follow-up, mean BMI was 32.1 kg/m2 (20.3-41.3) and mean EWL was 62.3% (18-127.2). When analyzing risk factors for GL, residual gastric volume between 250 and 350 mL was associated with a higher GL rate compared with a volume ≥350 mL, and re-SG performed during period 1 was associated with a higher GL rate than re-SG performed during period 2 (17.4% versus 0%; P = .13). Re-SG performed for weight regain was associated with a significantly higher additional weight loss compared with re-SG performed for insufficient weight loss (mean additional EWL of 45.9%; P = .06). CONCLUSION: Re-SG is feasible, but it requires adaptation of the surgical procedure to decrease complications. Results on weight loss are acceptable, but the best indications for re-SG were a gastric volume>350 mL and in the case of weight regain with the exception of technical failure of the primary SG.
BACKGROUND: Few series are available concerning repeat sleeve gastrectomy (re-SG), and series have reported contradictory results concerning morbidity rates, with limited data concerning weight loss. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the short- and medium-term outcomes of re-SG. SETTING: University hospital, France, public practice. METHODS: Between June 2007 and March 2016, all patients undergoing re-SG (n = 46 patients) were included. Re-SG was proposed for patients with insufficient excess weight loss (EWL) (≤50%) or renewed weight gain with excessively high residual gastric volume (>250 mL and/or large gastric pouch). The primary efficacy endpoint was the overall complication rate of re-SG. The secondary efficacy endpoints were operative data, evaluation of weight loss, and correction of co-morbidities, risk factors for gastric leak (GL), by comparing 2 periods (period 1, January 2004-December 2013: blue/green or purple staplers without reinforcement; period 2, after December 2013: black staplers with reinforcement) and comparison of weight loss according to the indication for re-SG. RESULTS: The re-SG group consisted of 46 patients (35 women, mean age: 47.5 yr). The mean body mass index (BMI) before SG was 47.2 kg/m² (35-63.6). The mean time interval between SG and re-SG was 73 months (11-106). The BMI before re-SG was 41.2 kg/m² (29-54.7). Indications for surgery were insufficient weight loss in 25 patients (54.3%) and weight regain in 21 patients (45.7%). A large gastric pouch was visible in 4 patients (8.6%). The mean operating time was 97.6 minutes (45-220). One death (2.1%) and 7 complications (15.2%) were observed. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.6 days (1-30). At last follow-up, mean BMI was 32.1 kg/m2 (20.3-41.3) and mean EWL was 62.3% (18-127.2). When analyzing risk factors for GL, residual gastric volume between 250 and 350 mL was associated with a higher GL rate compared with a volume ≥350 mL, and re-SG performed during period 1 was associated with a higher GL rate than re-SG performed during period 2 (17.4% versus 0%; P = .13). Re-SG performed for weight regain was associated with a significantly higher additional weight loss compared with re-SG performed for insufficient weight loss (mean additional EWL of 45.9%; P = .06). CONCLUSION: Re-SG is feasible, but it requires adaptation of the surgical procedure to decrease complications. Results on weight loss are acceptable, but the best indications for re-SG were a gastric volume>350 mL and in the case of weight regain with the exception of technical failure of the primary SG.