Michał Janik1,2, Christopher Ibikunle3,4, Ahad Khan4, Amir H Aryaie5,4. 1. Bariatric Center of Excellence, Department of surgery, Texas Tech University Health Science Center, Lubbock, TX, USA. janiken@gmail.com. 2. Department of General, Oncologic, Metabolic and Thoracic Surgery, Military Institute of Medicine, Warszawa, Poland. janiken@gmail.com. 3. Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, USA. 4. Bariatric and Reflux Center, Georgia SurgiCare, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. Bariatric Center of Excellence, Department of surgery, Texas Tech University Health Science Center, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reoperation, after failed gastric banding, is a controversial topic. A common approach is band removal with conversion to laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in a single-step procedure. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the safety of revisional surgery to LSG compared to LRYGB after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) based on MBSAQIP Participant User File from 2015 to 2018. METHODS: Patients who underwent a one-stage conversion of LAGB to LSG (Conv-LSG) or LRYGB (Conv-LRYGB) were identified in the MBSAQIP PUF from 2015 to 2017. Conv-LRYGB cases were matched (1:1) with Conv-LSG patients using propensity scoring to control for potential confounding. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 9974 patients (4987 matched pairs) were included in the study. Conv-LRYGB, as compared with conv-SG, was associated with a similar risk of mortality (0.02% vs. 0.06%; relative risk [RR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 3.20, p = 0.32). Conversion to LRYGB increased the risk for readmission (6.16% vs. 3.77%; RR, 1.63; 95%CI, 1.37 to 1.94, p < 0.01); reoperation (2.15% vs. 1.36%; RR, 1.57; 95%CI, 1.17 to 2.12, p = <0.01); leak (1.76% vs. 1.02%; RR, 1.57; 95%CI, 1.72 to 2.42, p < 0.01); and bleeding (1.66% vs. 1.00%; RR, 1.66; 95%CI, 1.7 to 2.34, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that single-stage LRYGB and LSG as revisional surgery after gastric banding, are safe in the 30-day observation with an acceptable complication rate and low mortality. However, conversion to LRYGB increased the risk of perioperative complications.
BACKGROUND: Reoperation, after failed gastric banding, is a controversial topic. A common approach is band removal with conversion to laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in a single-step procedure. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the safety of revisional surgery to LSG compared to LRYGB after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) based on MBSAQIP Participant User File from 2015 to 2018. METHODS:Patients who underwent a one-stage conversion of LAGB to LSG (Conv-LSG) or LRYGB (Conv-LRYGB) were identified in the MBSAQIP PUF from 2015 to 2017. Conv-LRYGB cases were matched (1:1) with Conv-LSG patients using propensity scoring to control for potential confounding. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 9974 patients (4987 matched pairs) were included in the study. Conv-LRYGB, as compared with conv-SG, was associated with a similar risk of mortality (0.02% vs. 0.06%; relative risk [RR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 3.20, p = 0.32). Conversion to LRYGB increased the risk for readmission (6.16% vs. 3.77%; RR, 1.63; 95%CI, 1.37 to 1.94, p < 0.01); reoperation (2.15% vs. 1.36%; RR, 1.57; 95%CI, 1.17 to 2.12, p = <0.01); leak (1.76% vs. 1.02%; RR, 1.57; 95%CI, 1.72 to 2.42, p < 0.01); and bleeding (1.66% vs. 1.00%; RR, 1.66; 95%CI, 1.7 to 2.34, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that single-stage LRYGB and LSG as revisional surgery after gastric banding, are safe in the 30-day observation with an acceptable complication rate and low mortality. However, conversion to LRYGB increased the risk of perioperative complications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bariatric surgery; Gastric banding; Laparoscopic roux-y gastric bypass; Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; Metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program (MBSAQIP); Revisional surgery
Authors: H J Jacobsen; B J Nergard; B G Leifsson; S G Frederiksen; E Agajahni; M Ekelund; J Hedenbro; H Gislason Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 6.939