Wadie Boshra Gerges1, Hisham Omran2, Fady Makram2. 1. Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. wadieboshra@gmail.com. 2. Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Revisional surgery after failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is growing and laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (LOAGB) has been proposed as a revisional procedure due to its combined restrictive and malabsorptive effects. The aim is to study short-term complications and weight loss (WL) results of the revisional LOAGB after LSG for the two-weight loss failure (WLF) types [insufficient weight loss (IWL) and weight regain (WR)] and to assess the possible effects of these two types of failure and gastric tube anatomy on the final outcome. METHODS: The data of 28 patients who completed 1-year follow-up for their revisional LOAGB after their failed LSG were assessed and statistically correlated to leakage and one year WL results. RESULTS: Operative time was 96 ± 17.4 min. Leakage occurred in 2 patients (7.1%); the small number of leak patients does not allow statistical analysis for leakage. Percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at one year was 79.0 ± 14.4%; percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) was 31.7 ± 6.4%. %EWL was 84.2 ± 13.1 with IWL and 73.0 ± 13.9 with WR (P = 0.036). %TWL was 35.0 ± 5.2 with IWL and 27.8 ± 5.5 with WR (P = 0.001). %TWL at persistent fundus, diffusely dilated, and nondilated stomach were 38.98 ± 4.57, 31.3 ± 5.33, and 28.54 ± 5.91, respectively (P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: LOAGB is a highly effective and safe procedure as a revision after LSG with WLF. Patients with IWL and patients with persistent fundus lost more weight than those with WR and those with diffuse stomach dilation or nondilation, respectively.
BACKGROUND: Revisional surgery after failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is growing and laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (LOAGB) has been proposed as a revisional procedure due to its combined restrictive and malabsorptive effects. The aim is to study short-term complications and weight loss (WL) results of the revisional LOAGB after LSG for the two-weight loss failure (WLF) types [insufficient weight loss (IWL) and weight regain (WR)] and to assess the possible effects of these two types of failure and gastric tube anatomy on the final outcome. METHODS: The data of 28 patients who completed 1-year follow-up for their revisional LOAGB after their failed LSG were assessed and statistically correlated to leakage and one year WL results. RESULTS: Operative time was 96 ± 17.4 min. Leakage occurred in 2 patients (7.1%); the small number of leak patients does not allow statistical analysis for leakage. Percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at one year was 79.0 ± 14.4%; percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) was 31.7 ± 6.4%. %EWL was 84.2 ± 13.1 with IWL and 73.0 ± 13.9 with WR (P = 0.036). %TWL was 35.0 ± 5.2 with IWL and 27.8 ± 5.5 with WR (P = 0.001). %TWL at persistent fundus, diffusely dilated, and nondilated stomach were 38.98 ± 4.57, 31.3 ± 5.33, and 28.54 ± 5.91, respectively (P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: LOAGB is a highly effective and safe procedure as a revision after LSG with WLF. Patients with IWL and patients with persistent fundus lost more weight than those with WR and those with diffuse stomach dilation or nondilation, respectively.
Authors: Shahzeer Karmali; Balpreet Brar; Xinzhe Shi; Arya M Sharma; Christopher de Gara; Daniel W Birch Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Anita P Courcoulas; Wendy C King; Steven H Belle; Paul Berk; David R Flum; Luis Garcia; William Gourash; Mary Horlick; James E Mitchell; Alfons Pomp; Walter J Pories; Jonathan Q Purnell; Ashima Singh; Konstantinos Spaniolas; Richard Thirlby; Bruce M Wolfe; Susan Z Yanovski Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Arthur Bohdjalian; Felix B Langer; Soheila Shakeri-Leidenmühler; Lisa Gfrerer; Bernhard Ludvik; Johannes Zacherl; Gerhard Prager Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Antonio Iannelli; Tarek Debs; Francesco Martini; Benjamin Benichou; Imed Ben Amor; Jean Gugenheim Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Anita P Courcoulas; Nicholas J Christian; Steven H Belle; Paul D Berk; David R Flum; Luis Garcia; Mary Horlick; Melissa A Kalarchian; Wendy C King; James E Mitchell; Emma J Patterson; John R Pender; Alfons Pomp; Walter J Pories; Richard C Thirlby; Susan Z Yanovski; Bruce M Wolfe Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 56.272