Background: Worldwide, the incidence of morbid obesity is increasing, and surgery is the only effective longterm treatment. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is associated with acceptable weight loss and reduced comorbidities. It is considered a safe procedure with sporadic complications. This publication aims to describe failures of LSG in terms of ineffective weight loss or early weight regain, and analyze secondary treatment options. Methods: From October 2001 to December 2010, 937 patients underwent LSG in our department. Initially, all procedures were scheduled as a two-stage procedure (LSG followed by biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch). However, the second procedure was not performed in 64 patients (body mass index > 60 kg/m²). Since 2005, the frequency of second stage procedures after weight regain has been increasing; their outcome is analyzed. Results: Of the 937 patients, 17 (1.8%) experienced staple line leakage. Mean time to first reintervention or endoscopic stent placement was 15.6 ± 22 days (range 2–78). From 2005 to 2010, 106 secondary procedures were performed. Insufficient weight loss or weight regain were the indications in 88 cases. Sixteen (15%) patients had severe gastroesophageal reflux which was resolved by Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Stenosis was observed in 2 (2.6%) patients, which required endoscopic dilatation and stent placement in one case and gastric bypass in the other. Conclusions: LSG is a feasible and popular bariatric procedure. Mortality (0.4%) was much higher than after gastric bypass (0.03%) and gastric banding (0%) The knowledge of potential complications and their management is crucial. All restrictive procedures require patient compliance, but increased food uptake after RYGB and LSG is common. Malabsorptive procedures are more effective for long-term weight loss. Duodenal switch and omega-loop gastric bypass are more efficient second stage procedures than re-sleeve or RYGB.

LSG constitutes a potentially safe anti-obesity procedure with acceptable morbidity. Experience at the beginning can be discouraging, even for surgeons with advanced laparoscopic skills. LSG can be performed safely, with proper mentoring and in appropriate settings, even by less experienced bariatric surgeons. The use of staple-line reinforcement was associated with improved perioperative outcomes, and it should be considered in an attempt to decrease leaks.

The long-term disease-free survival of 100 % in our study establishes laparoscopic wedge resection during RYGB and LSG as safe and effective in treating incidental gastric GISTs <2 cm.

Background: The hypothesis of "cross-addiction" has never been validated, and numerous aspects speak against it. Objectives: To compare the differences between sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric bypass (GB) procedures concerning cross-addiction. Setting: Center for maximum care in Germany. Methods: We performed a prospective analysis of patients undergoing SG or GB as the first surgical treatment for severe obesity. All patients completed validated questionnaires to evaluate food intake (Yale Food Addiction Scale, YFAS), alcohol intake (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test), nicotine use (Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence), exercise (Exercise Addiction Inventory), drug addiction (20-item Drug Abuse Screening Test), and Internet use disorder (Internet Addiction Test) before the operation (T0) and 6 (T6) and 24 (T24) months postoperatively (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02757716). Results: One hundred thirteen patients underwent SG (n = 68) or GB (n = 45). At the follow-up, 61% completed the questionnaires at T6 and 44% at T24. In the YFAS, the percentage of patients diagnosed with food addiction decreased from 69 to 10%, and the mean symptom count decreased from 3.52 ± 1.95 to 1.26 ± 0.99 at T24 (p < 0.0001); these values did not differ between the surgical groups (p = 0.784). No significant evidence of cross-addiction was observed for

No abstract