Current recommendations for procedure selection in class I and II obesity developed by an expert modified Delphi consensus.

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is widely considered the most effective option for treating obesity, a chronic, relapsing, and progressive disease. Recently, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) issued new guidelines on the indications for MBS, which have superseded the previous 1991 National Institutes of Health guidelines. The aim of this study is to establish the first set of consensus guidelines for selecting procedures in Class I and II obesity, using an Expert Modified Delphi Method. In this study, 78 experienced bariatric surgeons from 32 countries participated in a two-round Modified Delphi consensus voting process. The threshold for consensus was set at an agreement or disagreement of ≥ 70.0% among the experts. The experts reached a consensus on 54 statements. The committee of experts reached a consensus that MBS is a cost-effective treatment option for Class II obesity and for patients with Class I obesity who have not achieved significant weight loss through non-surgical methods. MBS was also considered suitable for patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher. The committee identified intra-gastric balloon (IGB) as a treatment option for patients with class I obesity and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) as an option for patients with class I and II obesity, as well as for patients with T2DM and a BMI of ≥ 30 kg/m2. Sleeve gastrectomy (1) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) were also recognized as viable treatment options for these patient groups. The committee also agreed that one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a suitable option for patients with Class II obesity and T2DM, regardless of the presence or severity of obesity-related medical problems. The recommendations for selecting procedures in Class I and II obesity, developed through an Expert Modified Delphi Consensus, suggest that the use of standard primary bariatric endoscopic (IGB, ESG) and surgical procedures (SG, RYGB, OAGB) are acceptable in these patient groups, as consensus was reached regarding these procedures. However, randomized controlled trials are still needed in Class I and II Obesity to identify the best treatment approach for these patients in the future.

Surgeon experience with insurance barriers to offering gastric bypass as an evidence-based operation for pathologic GERD.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity is an increasingly prevalent public health problem often associated with poorly controlled gastroesophageal reflux disease. Fundoplication has been shown to have limited long-term efficacy in patients with morbid obesity and does not address additional weight-related co-morbidities. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the gold standard operation for durable resolution of GERD in patients with obesity, and is also used as a salvage operation for GERD after prior foregut surgery. Surgeons report access to RYGB as surgical treatment for GERD is often limited by RYGB-specific benefit exclusions embedded within insurance policies, but the magnitude and scope of this problem is unknown. METHODS: A 9-item survey evaluating surgeon practice and experience with insurance coverage for RYGB for GERD was developed and piloted by a SAGES Foregut Taskforce working group. This survey was then administered to surgeon members of the SAGES Foregut Taskforce and to surgeons participating in the SAGES Bariatrics and/or Foregut Facebook groups. RESULTS: 187 surgeons completed the survey. 89% reported using the RYGB as an anti-reflux procedure. 44% and 26% used a BMI of 35 kg/m2 and 30 kg/m2 respectively as cutoff for the RYGB. 89% viewed RYGB as the procedure of choice for GERD after bariatric surgery. 69% reported using RYGB to address recurrent reflux secondary to failed fundoplication. 74% of responders experienced trouble with insurance coverage at least half the time RYGB was offered for GERD, and 8% reported they were never able to get approval for RYGB for GERD indications in their patient populations. CONCLUSION: For many patients, GERD and obesity are related diseases that are best addressed with RYGB. However, insurance coverage for RYGB for GERD is often limited by policies which run contrary to evidence-based medicine. Advocacy is critical to improve access to appropriate surgical care for GERD in patients with obesity.

Long-term outcomes after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: 10- to 13-year data.

BACKGROUND: Short- and mid-term data on Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) indicate sustained weight loss and improvement in co-morbidities. Few long-term studies exist, some of which are outdated, based on open procedures or different techniques. OBJECTIVES: To investigate long-term weight loss, co-morbidity remission, nutritional status, and complication rates among patients undergoing RYGB. SETTING: An academic, university hospital in the United States. METHODS: Between October 2000 and January 2004, patients who underwent RYGB≥10 years before study onset were eligible for chart review, office visits, and telephone interviews. Revisional surgery was an endpoint, ceasing eligibility for study follow-up. Outcomes included weight loss measures and rates of co-morbidity remission, complications, and nutritional deficiencies. RESULTS: RYGB was performed in 328 patients with a mean preoperative body mass index of 47.5 kg/m(2). Of 294 eligible patients, 134 (46%) were contacted for follow-up at ≥ 10 years (10+Year follow-up). Mean percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) was 58.9% at 10+Year. Higher %EWL was achieved by non-super-obese versus super-obese (61.3% versus 52.9%, P = .034). Blood pressure, lipid panel, and hemoglobin A1c improved significantly. At 10 years, remission of co-morbidities was 46% for hypertension and hyperlipidemia and 58% for diabetes mellitus. Thirty patients (9%) had revisional surgery for weight regain. Sixty-four patients (19.5%) had long-term complications requiring surgery. All-cause mortality was 2.7%. Nutritional deficiencies were seen in 87% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Weight loss after RYGB appears to be significant and sustainable, especially in the non-super-obese. Co-morbidities are improved, with a substantial number in remission a decade later. Nutritional deficiencies are almost universal.

Weight loss outcomes among patients referred after primary bariatric procedure.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric patients may not always obtain long-term care by their primary surgeon. Our aim was to evaluate weight loss outcomes in patients who had surgery elsewhere. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis. Postreferral management included nonsurgical, revision, or conversion. Primary outcomes were percent excess weight loss (%EWL) overall, according to original operation, and based on postreferral management. RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2013, there were 569 patients. Mean follow-up was 3.1 years. Management was 42% nonsurgical, 41% revision, and 17% conversion. Overall, mean %EWL was 45.3%. Based on original surgery type, %EWL was 41.2% for adjustable gastric banding vs 58.3% for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (P ≤ .0001). Management affected %EWL (41.2% nonsurgical vs 45.3% revision vs 55.1% conversion, P ≤ .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients referred after bariatric surgery can achieve satisfactory weight loss. This differs based on surgery type and management strategy.

Intraoperative leak testing has no correlation with leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Staple line leak is a serious complication of sleeve gastrectomy. Intraoperative methylene blue and air leak tests are routinely used to evaluate for leak; however, the utility of these tests is controversial. We hypothesize that the practice of routine intraoperative leak testing is unnecessary during sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was designed using a prospectively collected database of seven bariatric surgeons from two institutions. All patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy from March 2012 to November 2014 were included. The performance of intraoperative leak testing and the type of test (air or methylene blue) were based on surgeon preference. Data obtained included BMI, demographics, comorbidity, presence of intraoperative leak test, result of test, and type of test. The primary outcome was leak rate between the leak test (LT) and no leak test (NLT) groups. SAS version 9.4 was used for univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1550 sleeve gastrectomies were included; most were laparoscopic (99.8%), except for one converted and two open cases. Routine intraoperative leak tests were performed in 1329 (85.7%) cases, while 221 (14.3%) did not have LTs. Of the 1329 cases with LTs, there were no positive intraoperative results. Fifteen (1%) patients developed leaks, with no difference in leak rate between the LT and NLT groups (1 vs. 1%, p = 0.999). After adjusting for baseline differences between the groups with a propensity analysis, the observed lack of association between leak and intraoperative leak test remained. In this cohort, leaks presented at a mean of 17.3 days postoperatively (range 1-67 days). Two patients with staple line leaks underwent repeat intraoperative leak testing at leak presentation, and the tests remained negative. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative leak testing has no correlation with leak due to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and is not predictive of the later development of staple line leak.

Surgical management and outcomes of patients with marginal ulcer after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: Marginal ulcers (MUs) are potentially complex complications after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Although most resolve with medical management, some require surgical intervention. Many surgical options exist, but there is no standardized approach, and few reports of outcomes have been documented in the literature. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of surgical management of marginal ulcers. METHODS: Data from all patients who underwent surgical intervention between 2004 and 2012 for treatment of MU after previous Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were reviewed. RESULTS: Twelve patients with MUs underwent reoperation. Nine patients had associated gastrogastric fistulae (75%). The median time to reoperation was 43 months. Ten patients underwent subtotal gastrectomy, of which 9 had a revision of the gastrojejunal anastomosis and 1 did not. One underwent total gastrectomy with esophagojejunal anastomosis for ulcer after previous revisional partial gastrectomy, and 1 patient underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic truncal vagotomy for persistent ulcer-related bleeding in the early postoperative period. Three patients (25%) experienced postoperative complications associated with revisional surgery requiring reoperation. At median follow-up time of 35 months, 7 patients (58%) had chronic abdominal pain, and 4 patients (33%) had intermittent diarrhea. Three patients (25%) were lost to recent follow-up. None had recurrence of MU. CONCLUSION: Patients can undergo one of several available surgical interventions, including laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with gastrojejunostomy revision. Though this appears to offer definitive treatment of MU, its benefits must be weighed against the increased risk of significant postoperative complications and chronic symptoms related to revisional surgery.

Safety of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding with concurrent cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of cholelithiasis correlates with obesity. Patients often present for bariatric surgery with symptomatic cholelithiasis. There is a concern of cross-contamination when performing laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) with concurrent cholecystectomy. The primary goal of this study is to address the safety and feasibility of this practice. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was designed from a prospectively collected database. All LAGB patients from July 2005 to April 2013 were included. Patients undergoing LAGB with concurrent cholecystectomy comprised the study group (LAGB/chole). The control group (LAGB) consisted of patients undergoing LAGB alone, and was selected using a 3:1 (control:study) case-match based on demographic and comorbidity data. The primary outcome was overall complication rate, with secondary outcomes including operating room (OR) time, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission/reoperation, erosion, infection, and band/port revisional surgery. RESULTS: There were 4,982 patients who met criteria. Of these, 28 patients had a LAGB with concurrent cholecystectomy, comprising the LAGB/chole (study) group. The remaining 4,954 patients were eligible controls, of which 84 were selected for the LAGB (control) group. Demographic and comorbidity data, along with mean follow-up time, were similar between the two groups. OR time was longer in the LAGB/chole group, but LOS was the same. The overall complication rate in the LAGB/chole group was 21 (n = 6) versus 20% (n = 17) in the LAGB group (p = 0.893). Thirty-day readmission and reoperation were similar. There was also no difference in port site, wound, and intra-abdominal infections. There were no band erosions in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Performing a concurrent cholecystectomy at the time of LAGB does not result in increased immediate or delayed morbidity. Although longer to perform, this safe operation would avoid a second surgery for a patient already diagnosed with symptomatic cholelithiasis.

Single-stage versus 2-stage sleeve gastrectomy as a conversion after failed adjustable gastric banding: 30-day outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is being performed as a conversion after adjustable gastric banding (AGB), often in a single stage. However, some argue that it should be performed in 2 stages to improve safety. Few studies compare complications between 1-stage and 2-stage procedures. Our aim is to compare the 30-day complication rates among these two groups. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients converted from AGB to SG between 8/2008 and 10/2013 and compared patients undergoing 1-stage and 2-stage techniques. Primary outcome was overall 30-day adverse event rate (postoperative complication, readmission, or reoperation). Secondary outcomes included operating room (OR) time, length of stay (LOS), leak, infection, and bleeding rates, as well as mortality. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients underwent SG after band removal; three were excluded due to short follow-up, leaving 60 1-stage and 20 2-stage. Mean time from band removal to SG for 2-stage was 438 days. Demographics, intraoperative technique (bougie size, staple reinforcement, oversewing staple line, and leak test), and mean follow-up were not statistically different. Mean OR time (132.1 min 1-stage vs. 127.8 min 2-stage, p = 0.702) and LOS (3.1 vs. 2.4 days, p = 0.676) were similar. Overall 30-day adverse event rate was 12 % for 1-stage versus 15 % for 2-stage procedures (p = 0.705). Differences in 30-day readmission (8 vs. 5 %) and reoperation (5 vs. 0 %) were not statistically significant (p = 0.999 and 0.569, respectively). Leak (3 vs. 0 %, p = 0.999), abscess (2 vs. 5 %, p = 0.440), and bleeding rates (2 vs. 0 %, p = 0.999) were not different. There were no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: SG performed as a conversion after AGB is safe and feasible. Our findings indicate no statistical difference in 30-day outcomes when performed in 1 or 2 stages. Future studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to further investigate these differences.

Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding in patients aged seventy and older.

BACKGROUND: Life expectancy is increasing, with more elderly people categorized as obese. The objective of this study was to assess the effects of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) on patients aged ≥ 70 years. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent LAGB at our university hospital between 2003 and 2011. The data included age, weight, body mass index (BMI), and percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) obtained before and after gastric banding. Operative data, length of stay, postoperative complications, and resolution of co-morbid conditions were also analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients aged ≥ 70 years (mean 73 years) underwent gastric banding between 2003 and 2012. Mean preoperative weight and BMI were 123 kilograms and 45 kg/m(2), respectively. On average, each patient had 4 co-morbidities preoperatively, with hypertension (n = 49; 86%), dyslipidemia (n = 40; 70%), and sleep apnea (n = 31; 54%) being the most common. Mean operating room (OR) time was 49 minutes, with all patients discharged within 24 hours. There was 1 death at 4 years from myocardial infarction, no intensive care unit admissions, and no 30-day readmissions. Mean %EWL at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years was 36 (± 12.7), 40 (± 16.4), 42 (± 19.2), 41 (± 17.1), 50 (± 14.9), and 48 (± 22.6), respectively. Follow-up rates ranged from 55/55 (100%) at 6 months to 7/9 (78%) of eligible patients at 5 years and 2/2 (100%) at 8 years. Complications included 1 band slip at year 5, 1 band removed for intolerance, and 1 port site hernia. The resolution of hypertension, dyslipidemia, sleep apnea, lower back pain, and non-insulin-dependent diabetes was 27%, 28%, 35%, 31%, and 35%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LAGB as a primary treatment for obesity in carefully selected patients aged ≥ 70 can be well tolerated and effective with moderate resolution of co-morbid conditions and few complications.

Sustained weight loss after gastric banding revision for pouch-related problems.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) on weight loss at 12 and 24 months. BACKGROUND: There is no uniform consensus as to the optimal procedure for patients requiring revision after LAGB. Few studies address the issue of weight loss after band salvage procedures, despite this being a critical factor in deciding which reoperative procedure to choose. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of adult patients who underwent LAGB from January 1, 2001 to June 30, 2009 at a single institution. Patients who required revision for pouch-related problems including band slippage, pouch dilation, and hiatal hernia were studied. Demographic data, body mass index (BMI), percentage excess weight loss (% EWL), and operative details were recorded. Weights were recorded at 12 and 24 months after revision. These were compared with initial weight, weight before revision, and weight in patients who did not have a reoperation. RESULTS: Of 3876 patients, 390 patients were included in analysis of weight outcomes after revision. The procedure-related mortality was 0%. Early (30-day) complications occurred in 0.5%, late complications (erosion) in 0.5%, and 29 patients (7.4%) required a second revision. For patients undergoing revision, the initial weight was 124.06 ± 21.28 kg and BMI was 44.80 ± 6.12 kg/m. At reoperation, weight was 89.18 ± 20.51 kg, BMI was 32.25 ± 6.50 kg/m and, %EWL was 54.13 ± 21.80%. Twelve months postrevision, weight was 92.24 ± 20.22 kg, BMI was 33.32 ± 6.41 kg/m, and %EWL was 48.81 ± 22.71%. Weight was 92.42 ± 19.91 kg, BMI was 33.53 ± 6.25 kg/m, and %EWL was 47.50 ± 22.91% twenty-four months postrevision. CONCLUSIONS: Reoperation for pouch-related problems after LAGB is safe and effective. Weight loss is maintained after reoperation.

Location and number of sutures placed for hiatal hernia repair during laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: does it matter?

BACKGROUND: It has been demonstrated that hiatal hernia repair (HHR) during laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) decreases the rate of reoperation. However, the technical aspects (location and number of sutures) are not standardized. It is unknown whether such technical details are associated with differing rates of reoperation for band-related problems. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed from a single institution, including 2,301 patients undergoing LAGB with HHR from July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011. Independent variables were number and location of sutures. Data collected included demographics, operating room (OR) time, length of stay (LOS), follow-up time, postoperative BMI/%EWL, and rates of readmission/reoperation. Statistical analyses included ANOVA and Chi squared tests. Kaplan-Meier, log-rank, and Cox regression tests were used for follow-up data and reoperation rates, in order to account for differential length of follow-up and confounding variables. RESULTS: There was no difference in length of follow-up among all groups. The majority of patients had one suture (range 1-6; 55 %). Patients with fewer sutures had shorter OR time (1 suture 45 min vs. 4+ sutures 56 min, p < 0.0001). LOS, 30-day readmission, band-related reoperation, and postop BMI/%EWL were not statistically significant. Anterior suture placement (vs. posterior vs. both) was most common (61 %). OR time was shorter in those with anterior suture (41 min vs. posterior 56 min vs. both 59 min, p < 0.0001). Patients with posterior suture had a longer LOS (84 % 1 day vs. anterior 74 % 1 day vs. both 74 % 1 day, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in 30-day readmission, band-related reoperation, and postoperative BMI/%EWL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with fewer or anterior sutures have shorter OR times. However, 30-day readmission, band-related reoperation, and postoperative weight loss were unaffected by number or location of suture. The technical aspects of HHR did not appear to be associated with readmission or reoperation, and therefore a standardized approach may not be necessary.

Single-incision laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is effective and safe: 756 cases in an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is safe and effective. This less invasive option involving fewer incisions and umbilical approaches is coined as single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS). Over the last 3 years, we performed 46 % of our LAGBs as SILS with excellent results. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 1,644 LAGBs performed between 2008 and 2010. A total of 756 were performed as SILS bands (46 %) and 888 as standard (non-SILS) (54 %). Data points compared include operative time, percent of excess weight loss at 1 and 2 years, complication, and re-operation rates. RESULTS: Groups were matched by age, initial BMI, and gender: 584 non-SILS and 710 SILS patients. The average operating time was 44.3 ± 19.6 min for SILS and 51.1 ± 19.4 min for non-SILS (p < 0.001). The 12-month percent excess weight loss (%EWL) for SILS was 45.0 ± 19.1; it was 40.7 ± 17.5 for non-SILS (p = 0.003). The 24 month %EWL for SILS was 54.4 ± 16.3; it was 46.4 ± 16.1 for non-SILS (p = 0.10). Complication rates were 5.6 % (40 of 710) for SILS and 4.5 % (26 of 584) for non-SILS (p = 0.34). The 30-day readmission/re-operation rates are 1 % (seven of 710) for SILS and 1.5 % (nine of 584) for non-SILS (p = 0.37). There was one death in the SILS group. CONCLUSIONS: We have been performing more SILS bands over time. Our operative times and weight loss figures show that it is an efficient and effective means of weight loss. Furthermore, the data also show that the SILS approach is safe and does not increase operative time. In conclusion, SILS laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is a safe and effective means of attaining weight loss in selected patients.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is one of several weight loss procedures in the bariatric surgeon's armamentarium to treat morbid obesity. Laparoscopic gastric banding has the lowest perioperative risk compared to laparoscopic gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and duodenal switch (Buchwald et al., JAMA 292:1724-1737, 2004). The adjustable gastric band results in approximately 50% excess weight loss at 5 years (O'Brien and Dixon,J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 13:265-270, 2003). In the long-term, reoperation rates can be high with the percentage of reoperations varying enormously in reported studies from 2% to 80% (Schouten et al., Surg Obes Relat Dis 7:99-109, 2011), although with changes in technique, reoperation rates after gastric banding have decreased (O'Brien et al., Obes Surg 15:820-826, 2005). Aftercare is critical to the success of the banded patient, in terms of adjusting the band as well as monitoring the patient's symptoms (Weichman et al., Surg Endosc 25:397-403, 2011). Several studies have shown that patients who are seen more than six to seven times in the first postoperative year have better weight loss.

Does adding a lesser-curvature gastrogastric plication suture reduce the need for revision after laparoscopic adjustable gastric band placement?

BACKGROUND: The need for revision after laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) surgery has been reduced over the past 10 years with the introduction of the pars flaccida technique, delicate band tightening, and concurrent hiatal hernia repairs. However, band revision still occurs for as many as 5% of patients. Placement of a lesser-curvature gastrogastric suture distal to the band is one newer technique suggested to lower band slippage. To evaluate the worth of this technique, the authors have investigated two groups of patients in their practice: one group with the plication stitch and one group without it. METHODS: This retrospective review examined data for 1,365 LAGB patients collected prospectively by an institutional review board-approved database between July 2007 and May 2010. One surgeon did not perform the plication stitch (n = 776) and one did (n = 589). The surgical techniques were very similar. The majority of the patients had crural repair at the primary operation. Band revision rates were assessed. RESULTS: For 1,365 patients, LAGB was performed safely. The mean follow-up period was 22 months. The two groups were similar. The no-stitch group consisted of 776 patients (496 women, 64%) with a mean age of 42 years, a mean weight of 278 lb, and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 44.6 kg/m(2). The stitch group consisted of 589 patients (426 woman, 72%) with a mean age of 40 years, a mean weight of 278 lb, and a mean BMI of 44.8 kg/m(2). The no-stitch group had an estimated weight loss (EWL) of 44% at 12 months and 50% EWL at 2 years. The stitch group had 37% EWL at 12 months and 45% EWL at 2 years. Both groups had very low revision rates. The no-stitch group had 4 revisions in 776 patients (0.26%), and the stitch group had 9 revisions in 589 patients (1.5%). CONCLUSION: Adding gastrogastric plication sutures offers no benefit of reducing the rate of revision after LAGB surgery.

Impact of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding on pregnancy, maternal weight, and neonatal health.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is a proven method for weight reduction. Less is known about pregnancies in patients after LAGB. METHODS: Information was gathered, through database and survey, on women who underwent LAGB at NYU Medical Center between 2001 and 2008 then became pregnant. RESULTS: Pregnancy occurred in 133 women, resulting in 112 babies, including six sets of twins. The average pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) was 32.7. Average weight gain was 11.5 kg, but was higher for those with pre-pregnancy BMI <30.0 compared to BMI >30.0 (16.4 vs 8.6 kg). Of singleton pregnancies, 89% were carried to full term, with cesarean section in 45%. Those with pre-pregnancy BMI <30.0 had a lower rate of cesarean section (35.71%), but it was not statistically significant (p = 0.55). Average birth weight was 3,268.6 g. Eight percent of babies from singleton pregnancies were low birth weight (<2,500 g), and seven percent were high birth weight (>4,000 g). Average Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min were 8.89 and 9.17. Four percent of patients developed gestational diabetes, and 5% developed pre-eclampsia. Band adjustments were performed in 71% of patients. Weight gain was higher in those who had their bands loosened in the first trimester (p = 0.063). Three patients had intrapartum band slips; one required surgery during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: LAGB is tolerable in pregnancy with rare intrapartum band slips. Weight gain is less in those with higher pre-pregnancy BMI and those who had their bands filled or not adjusted. Babies born to these mothers are as healthy as the general population.

Safety of the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band: 7-year data from a U.S. center of excellence.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has become one of the most common weight-loss procedures performed in the United States. The authors' high-volume academic medical center has gathered a database of almost 3,000 patients who have undergone LAGB since January 2001. The goal of this series, the largest to date on LAGB outcomes at a single institution, was to assess complications associated with LAGB. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using longitudinal data from adult patients who underwent LAGB between 1 January 2001, and 29 February 2008. General and band-related complications were reported for all patients. Death and reoperation for weight gain (LAGB followed by either a second band insertion or a gastric bypass) also were reported. RESULTS: Of the 2,965 patients who received LAGB during the study period, 2,909 met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis, and 363 (12.2%) experienced one or more complications. The most common complications were band slip (4.5%) and port-related problems (3.3%). Other complications were rare. Only seven patients (0.2%) had band erosion. Eleven patients (0.4%) underwent reoperation for weight gain. A total of 10 deaths (0.34%) occurred during the study period. Three patients died within 30 days of surgery. Two of these deaths (0.06%) were related to surgery, and one resulted from a motor vehicle accident. Seven patients died of causes unrelated to surgery during the course of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The LAGB technique is a relatively safe procedure with few early or late complications. Few LAGB patients undergo reoperation for weight gain, and mortality is very rare.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor hepatectomy for living related transplantation in the porcine model.

Use of a minimally invasive approach for donor nephrectomy has proven to be safe and feasible and has increased the pool of donors for living related renal transplantation. A porcine study to assess the safety and feasibility of performing laparoscopic donor hepatectomy was performed, with potential application to human liver donors for living related liver transplantation. Of the 10 50-kg pigs used, 2 underwent an open left lateral segmentectomy to define the pig anatomy. Two subsequent pigs underwent a laparoscopic liver resection to refine the technique. Subsequently, under sterile conditions, six pigs underwent laparoscopic liver resection with use of a hand-assisted technique for long-term study. Diameters and lengths of hepatic vessels and ducts were measured. Operative blood loss, operative time, and warm ischemia duration were noted. Biopsies of the resected specimens were done to look for ischemia. There was one operative death in the group with chronic liver failure, due to stapler misfire and hemorrhage from the left hepatic vein. The only instance of morbidity was a wound infection. The resected liver had minimal warm ischemia time and microscopic changes, which led us to believe that the organ was suitable for transplantation. We believe that this long-term study establishes the feasibility of this procedure.