Perioperative Safety and 1-Year Outcomes of Single-Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass (SADI) vs. Biliopancreatic Diversion with Duodenal Switch (BPD/DS): A Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This randomized clinical trial evaluated the clinical outcomes of two surgical interventions for obesity treatment: single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI) and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS). The SADI procedure was developed as a response to the challenges posed by the BPD/DS procedure, aiming to enhance surgical efficiency, minimize postoperative risks, and maintain therapeutic efficacy. The present study primarily focused on early complications and short-term results. METHODS: Fifty-six patients with a body mass index (BMI) ranging from 42 to 72 kg/m2 were randomly assigned to either the SADI or BPD/DS procedure. Parameters compared included % excess weight loss (%EWL), % total weight loss (%TWL), length of hospital stay (LOS), re-admission rates, and complications. RESULTS: Both groups had similar demographics and baseline characteristics. SADI had a mean operating time of 109 min, significantly shorter than BPD/DS at 139 min (p < 0.001). Early complications occurred in five patients in the SADI group and in four patients in the BPD/DS group with no mortality. Median LOS was 2 days for both SADI and BPD/DS. Within 30 days, one SADI patient and three BPD/DS patients required re-admission. Serious late complications necessitating reoperation were observed in three SADI and two BPD/DS patients. After 1 year, %EWL and %TWL were similar: SADI (81.8% ± 13.6% and 40.1% ± 5.9%) and BPD/DS (84.2% ± 14.0% and 41.6% ± 6.4%). CONCLUSION: This trial suggests that both the SADI and BPD/DS yield comparable weight loss outcomes after 1 year, with a notable risk profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03938571 ( http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ).

The risk and benefit of revisional vs. primary metabolic- bariatric surgery and drug therapy - A narrative review.

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) leads to long-term weight loss, reduced risk of cardiovascular events and cancer, and reduced mortality. Sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass are currently the most common surgical techniques. Weight loss after MBS was previously believed to work through restriction and malabsorption, however, mechanistic studies show that MBS techniques with long term efficacy instead alter physiological signaling between the gut and the brain. In revisional MBS, the initial surgical technique is corrected, modified, or converted to a new one. The indication for revisional MBS can be to achieve further weight loss or improvement in obesity comorbidity, but it may be necessary due to complications (e.g., gastroesophageal reflux or obstruction). Revisional MBS is associated with an increased risk of surgical complications and often less weight loss compared to the results following primary surgery. This narrative review summarizes data from revisional MBS where information is often presented with inconsistent definitions for indications and outcomes, making comparison between strategies difficult. In summary, we suggest careful weighing of potential benefits and risks with revisional MBS, bearing in mind the option of add-on therapy with new anti-obesity drugs.

The impact of the bougie size and the extent of antral resection on weight-loss and postoperative complications following sleeve gastrectomy: results from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry.

BACKGROUND: The optimal sleeve diameter and distance from the pylorus to the edge of the resection line in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) remain controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of bougie size and antral resection distance from the pylorus on postoperative complications and weight-loss results in LSG. SETTING: Nationwide registry-based study. METHODS: This study included all LSGs performed in Sweden between 2012 and 2019. Data were obtained from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. Reference bougie size of 35-36 Fr and an antral resection distance of 5 cm from the pylorus were compared to narrower bougie size (30-32 Fr), shorter distances (1-4 cm), and extended distances (6-8 cm) from the pylorus in assessing postoperative complications and weight loss as the outcomes of LSG. RESULTS: The study included 9,360 patients with postoperative follow-up rates of 96%, 79%, and 50% at 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years, respectively. Narrow bougie and short antral resection distance from the pylorus were significantly associated with increased postoperative weight loss. Bougie size was not associated with increased early or late complications. However, short antral resection distance was associated with high risk of overall early complications [odds ratio: 1.46 (1.17-1.82, P = .001)], although no impact on late complications at 1 and 2 years was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Using a narrow bougie and initiating resection closer to the pylorus were associated with greater maximum weight loss. Although a closer resection to the pylorus was associated with an increased risk of early postoperative complications, no association was observed with the use of narrow bougie for LSG.

Non-response After Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy-the Theoretical Need for Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Results from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry.

BACKGROUND: Revisional surgery is a second-line treatment option after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric bypass (GBP) in patients with primary or secondary non-response. The aim was to analyze the theoretical need for revisional surgery after SG and GBP when applying four indication benchmarks. METHOD: Based on data from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry, SG and GBP were compared regarding four endpoints: 1. excess weight loss (%EWL) < 50%, 2. weight regain of more than 10 kg after nadir, 3. fulfillment of previous IFSO-guidelines, or 4. ADA criteria for bariatric metabolic surgery 2 years after primary surgery. RESULTS: A total of 60,426 individuals were included in the study (SG: n = 7856 and GBP: n = 52,570). Compared to patients in the GBP group, more SG patients failed to achieve a %EWL > 50% (23.0% versus 8.5%, p < .001), regained more than 10 kg after nadir (4.3% versus 2.5%, p < .001), and more often fulfilled the IFSO criteria (8.0% versus 4.5%, p < .001) or the ADA criteria (3.3% versus 1.8%, p < 001) at the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: SG is associated with a higher risk for weight non-response compared to GBP. To offer revisional bariatric surgery to all non-responders exceeds the bounds of feasibility and operability. Hence, individual prioritization and intensified evaluation of alternative second-line treatments are necessary.

Weight-Related Outcomes After Revisional Bariatric Surgery in Patients with Non-response After Sleeve Gastrectomy-a Systematic Review.

Weight non-response after sleeve gastrectomy is an emerging issue. This systematic review compared revisional procedures for weight-related outcomes. We searched several databases for relevant articles and included adult patients with revisional bariatric procedures after primary sleeve gastrectomy. Twelve trials with 1046 patients were included, covering five revisional procedures. There were no randomised controlled trials, and 10 studies had a critical risk of bias. Significant variations in inclusion criteria, therapy benchmarks, follow-up schemes, and outcome measurements were observed, preventing meaningful comparison of results. Evidence-based treatment strategies for weight non-response after sleeve gastrectomy cannot be deduced from the current literature. Prospective studies with well-defined indications, standardised techniques, and strict adherence to outcome measurements are needed.

Predictive factors of complications in revisional gastric bypass surgery: results from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry.

BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is the most common procedure for revisional bariatric surgery. This study is an analysis of revisional gastric bypass operations (rGBP) compared with primary gastric bypass (pGBP) performed in Sweden between 2007 and 2016. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the incidence of adverse events in primary and revisional gastric bypass surgery and to identify predictive factors of intraoperative, early, and late complications in revisional gastric bypass surgery. SETTING: Forty-four hospitals. METHODS: Registered study from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. The study group (rGBP) comprised 1795 patients, and the control group (pGBP) comprised 46,055 patients. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 28 months. The rate of open procedures was significantly higher in the rGBP group (39.1% versus 2.4%; P < .001) decreasing from 70.8% in 2007 to 8.5% in 2016. Intraoperative complications (15.5% versus 3.0%, P < .001), early complications (24.6% versus 8.7%; P < .001), and late complications (17.7% versus 8.7%; P < .001) occurred more often in the rGBP group. Open access in revisional surgery was an independent risk factor for intraoperative complications (odds ratio 3.87; 95% confidence interval: 2.69-5.57, P < .001), early complications (odds ratio 2.08; 95% confidence interval: 1.53-2.83, P < .001), and late complications (odds ratio 1.91; 95% confidence interval: 1.31-2.78, P = .001). Indication for revision or type of index operation were not associated with complications. CONCLUSION: RGBP was associated with a higher incidence of intraoperative, early, and late complications compared with pGBP. Open access in revisional surgery was predictive of complications regardless of the index operation or indication for revision.

Mesh fixation in endoscopic inguinal hernia repair: evaluation of methodology based on a systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The issue of mesh fixation in endoscopic inguinal hernia repair is frequently debated and still no conclusive data exist on differences between methods regarding long-term outcome and postoperative complications. The quantity of trials and the simultaneous lack of high-quality evidence raise the question how future trials should be planned. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched, using the filters "randomised clinical trials" and "humans". Trials that compared one method of mesh fixation with another fixation method or with non-fixation in endoscopic inguinal hernia repair were eligible. To be included, the trial was required to have assessed at least one of the following primary outcome parameters: recurrence; surgical site infection; chronic pain; or quality-of-life. RESULTS: Fourteen trials assessing 2161 patients and 2562 hernia repairs were included. Only two trials were rated as low risk for bias. Eight trials evaluated recurrence or surgical site infection; none of these could show significant differences between methods of fixation. Two of 11 trials assessing chronic pain described significant differences between methods of fixation. One of two trials evaluating quality-of-life showed significant differences between fixation methods in certain functions. CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence for differences between the assessed mesh fixation techniques is still lacking. From a socioeconomic and ethical point of view, it is necessary that future trials will be properly designed. As small- and medium-sized single-centre trials have proven unable to find answers, register studies or multi-centre studies with an evident focus on methodology and study design are needed in order to answer questions about mesh fixation in inguinal hernia repair.

Weight loss and alterations in co-morbidities after revisional gastric bypass: A case-matched study from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry.

BACKGROUND: In Sweden, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is the most common procedure when revising a previous bariatric procedure. This study is an analysis of all revisional gastric bypass operations (rGBP) compared with a matched group of primary gastric bypass (pGBP) operated between 2007 and 2012. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine whether improvement of obesity-related co-morbidity and changes in weight after revisional gastric bypass surgery were comparable with those seen after primary surgery. SETTING: 44 hospitals in Sweden METHODS: Retrospective data were retrieved from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. The study group (rGBP) comprised 1224 patients, and the control group (pGBP) comprised 3612 patients matched for age and gender. RESULTS: The indication for revision was weight failure in 512 patients (42%), a late complication of the initial procedure in 330 patients (27%), and a combination of weight failure and complication in 303 patients (25%). A total of 66% of patients in the rGBP group and 67% in the pGBP group completed the 2-year follow-up in the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. The rGBP-group had significantly less excess BMI loss (%EBMIL 59.4±147.0 versus 79.5±24.7, P<.001) and a lower dyslipidemia remission rate (42.9% versus 62.0%, P = .005) at the time of the 2-year follow-up. Remission rates of sleep apnea, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and depression were similar. The effects on obesity-related co-morbidity were not related to the indication for revisional surgery or the initial bariatric procedure. CONCLUSION: Even if weight results might be inferior compared with primary bypass procedures, the improvement of co-morbidity is similar.

Case report: rare case of mechanical bowel obstruction due to strangulation by gastric stimulator electrodes.

BACKGROUND: Implantation of a gastric stimulator is a feasible surgical therapy for patients with therapy refractory gastroparesis. In addition it seems to be a promising alternative for treating morbid obesity. We present for the first time the surgical emergency of small bowel obstruction due to strangulation by gastric stimulator electrodes. CASE PRESENTATION: A 59-year-old Caucasian female had undergone implantation of a gastric stimulator to cope with the symptoms of a partial gastroparesis. Eight years after the operation, the patient began to present repeatedly to different hospitals because of abdominal pain and nausea. Symptoms and imaging indicated ileus, which could always be treated conservatively. The underlying pathology could not ultimately be determined and the symptoms were eventually considered gastroparesis-related. After two years the patient was finally referred in circulatory shock due to peritonitis with underlying small bowel obstruction. Emergency laparotomy revealed small bowel strangulation by the gastric stimulator electrodes. CONCLUSION: Repeated presentation of a patient with an unfamiliar treatment modality must raise suspicion of unusual complications. Specialist surgeons treating with innovative methods should provide proper information that is accessible to everyone who might have to treat possible complications.