One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OABG) vs. Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass (SADI) as revisional procedure following Sleeve Gastrectomy: results of a multicenter study.

PURPOSE: Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) is the most performed bariatric surgery, but a considerable number of patients may require revisional procedures for suboptimal clinical response/recurrence of weight (SCR/RoW). Conversion options include One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) and Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass (SADI). The study aims to compare SADI vs. OAGB as revisional procedures in terms of early and mid-term complications, operative time, postoperative hospital stay and clinical outcomes. METHODS: All patients who underwent OAGB or SADI as revisional procedures following SG for SCR/RoW at three high-volume bariatric centers between January 2014 and April 2021 were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Demographic, operative, and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-eight patients were identified. After PSM, the two groups included 42 OAGB and 42 SADI patients. Early (≤ 30 days) postoperative complications rate did not differ significantly between OAGB and SADI groups (3 bleedings vs. 0, p = 0.241). Mid-term (within 2 years) complications rate was significantly higher in the OAGB group (21.4% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.007), mainly anastomotic complications and reflux disease (12% of OAGBs). Seven OAGB patients required conversion to another procedure (Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass-RYGB) vs. none among the SADI patients (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: SADI and OAGB are both effective as revisional procedures for SCR/RoW after SG. OAGB is associated with a significantly higher rate of mid-term complications and a not negligible rate of conversion (RYGB). Larger studies are necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic bariatric procedures in super-obese patients: clinical and economic outcomes.

The increased operative time and costs represent the main limitations of robotic technology application to bariatric surgery. Robotic platforms may help the surgeon to overcome the technical difficulties in super-obese (SO, BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2) patients, in which multi-quadrant operations could be challenging. We aimed to evaluate the effect of robot-assisted (R) versus laparoscopic (L) approaches in Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy (SADI-S) and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) in SO and Super-Super Obese (SSO, BMI ≥ 60 kg/m2) patients in terms of outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Bariatric procedures performed from 2012 to 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criteria were BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2, primary SADI-S or RYGB. Operative time (OT), early complications, post-operative stay (POS), overall costs and follow-up data were analyzed. A subgroup analysis for surgical procedures and SSO patients was also performed. Among 4596 patients, 174 RYGB and 91 SADI-S in BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 patients were selected. After Propensity Score Matching analysis, two groups of patients were identified (laparoscopic and robot-assisted), each one composed of 18 RYGB and 26 SADI-S. Intraoperative and post-operative complication rates and POS were comparable. Mean OT was longer in robotic procedures compared with laparoscopy (199.1 ± 65.7 and 109.5 ± 39.1 min, respectively, p < 0.001). The difference in OT was eliminated after only SSO patients were included in the analysis (172.7 ± 24.1 vs 152.6 ± 26.2 min for R-SADI-S and L-SADI-S, respectively, p = 0.107). Robotic surgeries were associated with higher costs (8134.6 ± 1886.7 and 2386.7 ± 388.2 € in R-RYGB and L-RYGB, respectively; 7996.6 ± 873.1 and 3954.6 ± 631.1 € in R-SADI-S and L-SADI-S). Despite increased costs, robotic approach may represent an added value in more complex cases such as SSO patients.

Robotic vs laparoscopic approach for single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy: a propensity score matching analysis.

Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) are technically demanding hypo-absorptive bariatric procedures. They are often indicated in superobese patients (BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2), as robotic platform could improve ergonomics against a thick abdominal wall, preventing bending of instruments and simplifying hand-sewn anastomoses. We aimed to report our experience with robotic SADI-S (R-group) and to compare outcomes with the laparoscopic (L-group) approach. Among 2143 patients who underwent bariatric procedures at our institution between July 2016 and June 2021, 116 (5.4%) consenting patients were scheduled for SADI-S as primary or revisional procedure: 94 L-group, 22 R-group. R-group and L-group patients were matched using PSM analysis to overcome patients selection bias. Postoperative complications, operative time (OT), post-operative stay (POS) and follow-up data were compared. After PSM, 44 patients (22 patients for each group) were compared (Chi-square 0.317, p = 0.985). Median age, gender, median BMI, preoperative rates of comorbidities, previous abdominal bariatric and non-bariatric surgeries and type of surgical procedures (SADI-S/SADI) were comparable. Median OT was shorter in the L-group (130 Vs 191 min, p < 0.001). 30-days' re-operative complications and late complications rates were comparable. At 25-months' mean follow-up, the median Percentage Excess Weight Loss (72%) was comparable between the groups (p = 0.989). L-group and R-group were comparable in terms of re-operative complication rate and short-term outcomes. The robotic platform may increase the rate of single step procedure in challenging cases. Larger studies with longer follow-up and cost-analysis are necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

Single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S): experience from a high-bariatric volume center.

PURPOSE: Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) are technically demanding hypo-absorptive bariatric procedures generally indicated in super-obese patients (BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2). Data from the literature prove the procedure to be safe and effective, with promising bariatric and metabolic effects. Anyway, international societies support the creation of multicentric national and international registries to obtain more homogeneous data over the long period. We aimed to report our experience with this procedure. METHODS: Among 2313 patients who underwent bariatric procedures at our institution, between July 2016 and August 2021, 121 (5.2%) consenting patients were scheduled for SADI-S as primary (SADIS) or revisional procedure after sleeve gastrectomy (SADI) (respectively 87 and 34 patients). Early and late post-operative complications, operative time, post-operative stay, and follow-up data were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, the median preoperative BMI was 52.3 (48.75-57.05) kg/m2 with a median age of 44 (39-51) years, the median operative time was 120 (100-155) min. Complications at 30th-day post-op were registered in 4 (3.3%) patients and late complications in 4 (3.3%) patients. At a median follow-up of 31 (14-39) months, the median percentage excess weight loss was 79.8 (55.15-91.45)%, and the median total weight loss was 57.0650 (43.3925-71.3475)%. CONCLUSION: Our data, coherently with the literature, confirm that SADI-S is a safe, effective procedure with acceptable complications rate. Larger studies with longer follow-ups are necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

Early Routine Upper Gastrointestinal Contrast Study Following Bariatric Surgery: an Indispensable Postoperative Care or a Medicolegal Heritage?

Concerns still exist regarding the role of early routine upper gastrointestinal contrast study (UGI) after bariatric procedures for detection of early complications. We reviewed our database to identify patients who underwent laparoscopic primary or redo surgery (previously placement of adjustable gastric banding), between January 2012 and December 2017. All the patients underwent UGI within 48 h after surgery. Among 1094 patients, early UGI was abnormal in 5 patients: in 4 cases a leak (one false positive) and in one case stenosis (one true positive) were suspected. In this clinical setting, five leaks were observed and required surgical re-exploration: 3 correctly identified and 2 not detected at UGI. Overall, 3 patients developed anastomotic stenosis. Our data suggest that early routine UGI after bariatric procedures has limited utility.

Barbed vs conventional sutures in bariatric surgery: a propensity score analysis from a high-volume center.

The use of barbed sutures for constructing an anastomosis is favoured by a few bariatric surgeons as compared to conventional sutures. The aim of this study is to assess safety and efficacy of barbed sutures to close the gastric pouch-jejunal anastomosis (GPJA) in laparoscopic gastric bypass (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass-RYGB, and One-Anastomosis gastric bypass-OAGB) using propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis. A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent primary laparoscopic gastric bypasses between January 2012 and December 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into two different groups (RYGB-G and OAGB-G). PSM analysis was performed to minimize patient selection bias between the two types of sutures (barbed-BS and conventional-CS) in each group. A total of 808 patients were reviewed. After PSM, 488 (244 BS vs 244 CS) patients in RYGB-G and 48 in OAGB-G (24 BS vs 24 CS) patients were compared. Median operative time was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) for BS in RYGB-G. In OAGB-G, BS were associated with a shorter operative time, although no significant difference was observed (p = 0.183). Post-operative hospital stay was significantly shorter for BS in both the groups (p < 0.001). Post-operative 30th-day complications were comparable: no leakage or bleeding of GPJA was observed in BS groups. At median follow-up of 28.78 months, no late complications were observed. Barbed sutures appear to be effective to close GPJA during gastric bypass and as safe as conventional suture. Further studies are necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

Single-Docking Full Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Single-Center Experience.

PURPOSE: Robotic surgery has gradually gained importance in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, recent studies have not shown any advantages when compared with laparoscopy. The objective of this study is to report a single surgeon's experience in robotic rectal surgery focusing on short-term and long-term outcomes. METHODS: Sixty consecutive robotic rectal resections for adenocarcinoma, over a 4-year period, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients' characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Oncological outcomes and surgical resection quality as well as overall and disease-free survival were also assessed. RESULTS: Thirty patients out of 60 (50%) underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Anterior rectal resection was performed in 52 cases (86.7%), and abdominoperineal resection was done in 8 cases (13.3%). Mean operative time was 283 (±68.6) minutes. The conversion rate was 5% (3 patients). Postoperative complications occurred in 10 cases (16.7%), and reoperation was required in 1 case (1.7%). Mean hospital stay was 9 days, while 30-day mortality was 1.7% (1 patients). The histopathological analysis reported a negative circumferential radial margin and distal margins in 100% of cases with a complete or near complete total mesorectal excision in 98.3% of patients. Mean follow-up was 32.8 months with a recurrence rate of 3.4% (2 patients). Overall survival and disease-free survival were 94% and 87%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery for rectal cancer proves to be safe and feasible when performed by highly skilled surgeons. It offers acceptable perioperative outcomes with a conversion rate notably lower than with the laparoscopic approach. Adequate pathological results and long-term oncological outcomes were also obtained.