Single-stage revision from gastric band to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy: 6- and 12-month outcomes

Yeung, Louise; Durkan, Brandice; Barrett, Allison M.; Kraft, Cary; Vu, Kim T.; Cunneen, Scott A.; Burch, Miguel

doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4498-x

Cited by 39 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also important to mention that WR is associated with the deterioration of the quality of life and the reappearance or worsening of obesity-associated comorbidities, e.g., hypertension and type 2 diabetes (T2D) which necessitate close monitoring and appropriate management [7,8]. Moreover, revisional BS to manage WR/IWL may have higher complication and mortality rates compared to primary BS [9][10][11][12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weight Regain and Insufficient Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery: Definitions, Prevalence, Mechanisms, Predictors, Prevention and Management Strategies, and Knowledge Gaps—a Scoping Review

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some patients experience weight regain (WR) or insufficient weight loss (IWL) after bariatric surgery (BS). We undertook a scoping review of WR and IWL after BS. We searched electronic databases for studies addressing the definitions, prevalence, mechanisms, clinical significance, preoperative predictors, and preventive and treatment approaches including behavioral, pharmacological, and surgical management strategies of WR and IWL. Many definitions exist for WR, less so for IWL, resulting in inconsistencies in the reported prevalence of these two conditions. Mechanisms and preoperative predictors contributing to WR are complex and multifactorial. A range of the current knowledge gaps are identified and questions that need to be addressed are outlined. Therefore, there is an urgent need to address these knowledge gaps for a better evidence base that would guide patient counseling, selection, and lead to improved outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weight Regain and Insufficient Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery: Definitions, Prevalence, Mechanisms, Predictors, Prevention and Management Strategies, and Knowledge Gaps—a Scoping Review

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There have been recent trends towards RLSG after GB failure, given its comparable WL results [ 10 – 16 ]. Compared to the complication risks of revision gastric bypass, the complication risks of RLSG are similar in some studies [ 11 , 16 , 17 ] but lower in other studies [ 13 , 15 , 18 , 19 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Medium Term Outcomes of Revision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy after Gastric Banding: A Propensity Score Matched Study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Revision bariatric surgery may be undertaken after weight loss failure and/or complications following primary bariatric surgery. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RLSG) after gastric banding (GB) to those of primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (PLSG). Materials and Methods A retrospective, propensity-score matched study was conducted to compare between PLSG (control) patients and RLSG after GB (treatment) patients. Patients were matched using 2:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching without replacement. Patients were compared on weight loss outcomes and postoperative complications for up to five years. Results 144 PLSG patients were compared against 72 RLSG patients. At 36 months, PLSG patients had significantly higher mean %TWL than RLSG patients (27.4 ± 8.6 [9.3–48.9]% vs. 17.9 ± 10.2 [1.7–36.3]%, p < 0.01). At 60 months, both groups had similar mean %TWL (16.6 ± 8.1 [4.6–31.3]% vs. 16.2 ± 6.0 [8.8–22.4)]%, p > 0.05). Early functional complication rates were slightly higher with PLSG (13.9% vs. 9.7%), but late functional complication rates were comparatively higher with RLSG (50.0% vs. 37.5%). The differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Both early (0.7% vs 4.2%) and late (3.5% vs 8.3%) surgical complication rates were lower in PLSG patients compared to RLSG patients but did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05). Conclusion RLSG after GB has poorer weight loss outcomes than PLSG in the short-term. Although RLSG may carry higher risks of functional complications, the safety of RLSG and PLSG are overall comparable. Graphical abstract

show abstract

“…Resting pressure high, relaxes properly 92% peristaltic, 8% simultaneous, 0% failed a Full HRM report not available in patient's medical record, but normal results were documented by her surgeon the surgical literature is the 1-stage vs. 2-staged operative approach to conversions after failed LAGB. While roughly 60% of our AGB-to-SG and 65% of our AGB-to-RYGB conversions were done in 2 stages ( Table 2), 60% of patients (n = 1223) in a recent systematic review by Sharples et al (10) and ≥ 70% of patients across multiple US studies have undergone 1-stage conversions as shown in Table 5 [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. There is no level I evidence supporting the superiority of a staged approach for revisional bariatric surgery following AGB removal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical Management of Adjustable Gastric Band Failures and Literature Review: Algorithm for Removal and Conversion

Hechenbleikner

Dong

Kini

et al. 2020

SN Compr. Clin. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adjustable gastric band (AGB) failures frequently require conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB); the ideal conversional procedure is not established. We report on management of AGB failures at a university hospital along with literature review and proposed treatment algorithm. From October 2012 to January 2017, 32 patients underwent laparoscopic AGB removal with conversion to SG (n = 23) or RYGB (n = 9). Patient characteristics and outcomes were abstracted from medical records and a quality improvement database. Twenty-three patients (71.9%) were female with mean age of 43 ± 10.6 years and mean BMI of 42.7 ± 5.9 kg/m2; 62.5% (n = 20) had 2-staged conversion while 37.5% (n = 12) had 1-stage conversion to SG/RYGB. GERD significantly increased likelihood of conversion to RYGB vs. SG (44.4% vs. 0, p = 0.03). Preoperative diagnostics included upper gastrointestinal series (n = 15,46.7%), esophagogastroduodenoscopy (n = 32,100%), and high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) (n = 11,34.4%). Overall complication rate was 9.4% (n = 3). AGB-to-SG patients had mean % total body weight loss of 17.0% ± 5.9 compared to 28.3% ± 15 in AGB-to-RYGB, and mean follow-up of 11.7 ± 12.9 months compared to 18.9 ± 14.4 months. Validated criteria for conversional procedure selection following AGB failure do not exist; appropriate procedure selection requires thorough workup. Future research may elucidate the role of HRM in the diagnostic armamentarium.

show abstract

Single-stage revision from gastric band to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy: 6- and 12-month outcomes

Cited by 39 publications

References 35 publications

Weight Regain and Insufficient Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery: Definitions, Prevalence, Mechanisms, Predictors, Prevention and Management Strategies, and Knowledge Gaps—a Scoping Review

Weight Regain and Insufficient Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery: Definitions, Prevalence, Mechanisms, Predictors, Prevention and Management Strategies, and Knowledge Gaps—a Scoping Review

Medium Term Outcomes of Revision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy after Gastric Banding: A Propensity Score Matched Study

Surgical Management of Adjustable Gastric Band Failures and Literature Review: Algorithm for Removal and Conversion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About