Comparison of revisional surgeries after OAGB versus RYGB: Results from the multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS).

<br><b>Introduction:</b> Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is a leading bariatric surgery globally. One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), a modification of RYGB, ranks as the third most common bariatric procedure in Poland. While clinical trials show that OAGB outcomes are comparable to those of RYGB regarding weight loss, remission of comorbidities, and hormonal impact, there is limited data on long-term outcomes and complications.</br><br><b>Aim:</b> The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of revisional surgeries conducted after OAGB <i>versus</i> RYGB.</br> <br><b>Material and methods:</b> This retrospective study analyzed patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgeries from January 2010 to January 2020 across 12 Polish centers. The inclusion criteria were an age of at least 18 years and prior OAGB or RYGB surgery. Those with incomplete primary surgery data and follow-up post-revision were excluded. Data were collected regarding parameters for anthropometrics, comorbidities, and perioperative details. The patients were categorized based on their initial surgery: OAGB or RYGB. The primary endpoints were the reasons for and types of revisional surgery and weight changes; the secondary endpoints were postoperative complications and length of hospital stay (LOS).</br> <br><b>Results:</b> In total, 27 patients participated, with a mean age of 38.18 7 years. Differences between the OAGB (13 patients) and RYGB (14 patients) groups included median initial body weight (100 kg <i>vs.</i> 126 kg, p<0.016), number of postoperative complications (9 <i>vs.</i> 3, p = 0.021), and median LOS (3 <i>vs.</i> 4.5 days, p = 0.03). GERD was the primary reason for OAGB revisions (69.2%), whereas insufficient weight loss led to the most RYGB revisions (42.9%).</br><br><b>Conclusions:</b> The RYGB patients commonly needed revisions due to weight issues, whereas reoperations in the OAGB patients were conducted due to postoperative complications. The postoperative complications and LOS were similar between the groups.</br> <br><b>The importance of research for the development of the field:</b> The results may influence clinical surgeons' choice of surgical technique.</br>.

Differences in Technical Aspects of Primary Sleeve Gastrectomy Prior to Redo Bariatric Surgery-A Multicenter Cohort Study (PROSS Study).

Background and Objectives: Although the technical simplicity of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is relatively well understood, many parts of the procedure differ according to bariatric surgeons. These technical variations may impact postoperative weight loss or the treatment of comorbidities and lead to qualification for redo procedures. Materials and Methods: A multicenter, observational, retrospective study was conducted among patients undergoing revision procedures. Patients were divided into three groups based on the indications for revisional surgery (insufficient weight loss or obesity-related comorbidities treatment, weight regain and development of complications). Results: The median bougie size was 36 (32-40) with significant difference (p = 0.04). In 246 (51.57%) patients, the resection part of sleeve gastrectomy was started 4 cm from the pylorus without significant difference (p = 0.065). The number of stapler cartridges used during the SG procedure was six staplers in group C (p = 0.529). The number of procedures in which the staple line was reinforced was the highest in group A (29.63%) with a significant difference (0.002). Cruroplasty was performed in 13 patients (p = 0.549). Conclusions: There were no differences between indications to redo surgery in terms of primary surgery parameters such as the number of staplers used or the length from the pylorus to begin resection. The bougie size was smaller in the group of patients with weight regain. Patients who had revision for insufficient weight loss were significantly more likely to have had their staple line oversewn. A potential cause could be a difference in the size of the removed portion of the stomach, but it is difficult to draw unequivocal conclusions within the limitations of our study.