Cargando…

Laparoscopic Revision of Failed Bariatric Procedures

BACKGROUND: The main indications for revision of bariatric surgery are inadequate weight loss, weight regain, or complications. The objective of revision is to restore the restrictive component and/or add a malabsorptive component. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of revisional laparoscopic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Frantzides, Constantine T., Alexander, Brad, Frantzides, Alexander T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6328359/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30675090
http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2018.00074
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The main indications for revision of bariatric surgery are inadequate weight loss, weight regain, or complications. The objective of revision is to restore the restrictive component and/or add a malabsorptive component. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of revisional laparoscopic bariatric surgery for loss of weight and assess the risks and benefits associated with these technically demanding procedures. METHODS: Revision cases performed between 2001 and 2013 were identified and grouped according to the primary procedure and type of revision. A retrospective analysis was carried out for weight loss as well as perioperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: The total of 271 patients underwent revisional laparoscopic surgery during the study period and were categorized into four groups. Group 1 (n = 67) had an adjustable gastric band converted to gastric bypass (GBP). Group 2 (n = 128) had a dilated gastric pouch after GBP and underwent pouch reduction. Group 3 (n = 57) had a GBP and underwent pouch reduction and elongation of the biliopancreatic limb. Group 4 (n = 19) had a vertical banded gastroplasty converted to a GBP. The mean total body weight loss for Groups 1 to 4 was 35.3%, 22.9%, 39.4%, and 33.2%, respectively. The average operative times were 185, 75, 142, and 205 minutes; and the average hospitalization was 1.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 2.5 days, respectively. All cases were completed laparoscopically. Concomitant procedures were liver biopsy, cholecystectomy, partial gastrectomy, hiatal, ventral, and internal hernia repairs. Complication rates were 2.9%, 0%, 3.5%, and 5.2% for each of the groups and there were no mortalities. CONCLUSION: Results of revisional bariatric surgery vary depending on the original procedure and the reasons for revision. In particular, if the main reason for reoperation is inadequate weight loss, then the burden is to demonstrate a surgically correctable deficiency. Revisional procedures incorporating malabsorption result in greater weight loss than gastric restriction alone.