ReSleeve or revisional one anastomosis gastric bypass for failed primary sleeve gastrectomy with dilated gastric tube: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) has been increasingly performed due to weight loss failure (WLF). Many revisional procedures have been proposed after primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (pLSG) failure, including ReSleeve gastrectomy (ReLSG), and laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (LOAGB). Choosing the RBS post-pLSG failure represents a challenge. WLF without gastric tube (GT) dilation is undoubtedly converted to a malabsorptive procedure, but the presence of GT dilation makes it more difficult to select a RBS. This study aimed to compare two relatively simple revisional procedures after pLSG failure with dilated GT to help decision making on which procedure better done to which patient. METHODS: Data of 52 patients who completed one year follow-up (FU) after their RBS (ReLSG: 27 or LOAGB: 25) for their failed pLSG were collected, assessed, correlated to weight loss (WL) and compared. RESULTS: Mean operative time was 97 ± 18.4 min. with revisional LOAGB (RLOAGB) and 62 ± 11 min. with ReLSG. Six patients (11.5%) had seven postoperative procedure-specific complications. Significant hemorrhage occurred in three patients. Two cases of leakage were encountered with each procedure. LOAGB Patients had lower mean final weight (76.2 ± 10.5 vs 85.3 ± 13), lower mean Final BMI (26.4 ± 2.5 vs 29.7 ± 2.9) and higher mean percentage of excess weight loss (EWL%) (83.6 ± 13.5% vs 60.29 ± 14.6%). All RLOAGB patients and 77.8% of ReLSG patients had EWL% > 50%. RLOAGB patients had higher EWL% compared to ReLSG (p < 0.001). Insufficient WL (IWL) patients had higher EWL% compared to weight regain (WR) patients (p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Both procedures (RLOAGB and ReLSG) were relatively safe and effective in terms of WL. RLOAGB led to higher WL compared to ReLSG in all types of patients despite higher Caloric intake. IWL patients had more WL compared to WR patients. WL was not related to GT dilation type. Large-scale longer-FU studies are still needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PACTR202310644487566 (retrospectively registered).

Conversion of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after weight loss failure into laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass: short-term safety and efficacy and effect of indications on outcome.

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.