The SAGES MASTERS program bariatric surgery pathway selects 10 seminal publications on adjustable gastric banding.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is one of the clinical pathways of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Masters Program, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is one of the three anchoring bariatric procedures. To improve surgeon lifelong learning, the Masters Program seeks to identify sentinel articles of each of the 3 bariatric anchoring procedures. In this article, we present the top 10 articles on LAGB. METHODS: A systematic literature search of papers on LAGB was completed, and publications with the most citations and citation index were selected and shared with SAGES Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Committee members for review. The individual committee members then ranked these papers, and the top 10 papers were chosen based on the composite ranking. RESULTS: The top 10 sentinel publications on LAGB contributed substantially to the body of literature related to the procedure, whether for surgical technique, novel information, or outcome analysis. A summary of each paper including expert appraisal and commentary is presented here. CONCLUSION: These seminal articles have had significant contribution to our understanding and appreciation of the LAGB procedure. Bariatric surgeons should use this resource to enhance their continual education and acquisition of specialized skills.

The SAGES masters program presents the 10 seminal articles for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Masters Program includes eight distinct clinical pathways. The Bariatric Surgery Pathway focuses on three anchoring procedures, including the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) which is the most commonly performed bariatric procedure in the United States. In this article, we present and discuss the top 10 seminal articles regarding the LSG. METHODS: The literature was systematically searched to identify the most cited papers on LSG. The SAGES Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery committee reviewed the most cited article list, and using expert consensus elected the seminal articles deemed most pertinent to LSG. These articles were reviewed in detail by committee members and are presented here. RESULTS: The top 10 most cited sentinel papers on LSG focus on operative safety, outcomes, surgical technique, and physiologic changes after the procedure. A summary of each paper is presented, including expert appraisal and commentary. CONCLUSIONS: The seminal articles presented support the widespread acceptance and use of the LSG by bolstering the understanding of its mechanism of action and by demonstrating its safety and excellent patient outcomes. All bariatric surgeons should be familiar with these 10 landmark articles.

SAGES guidelines for the surgical treatment of hiatal hernias.

BACKGROUND: Hiatal hernia (HH) is a common condition. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of HH. METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted for four key questions regarding the treatment of HH in adults: surgical treatment of asymptomatic HH versus surveillance; use of mesh versus no mesh; performing a fundoplication versus no fundoplication; and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus redo fundoplication for recurrent HH. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology by subject experts. When the evidence was insufficient to base recommendations on, expert opinion was utilized instead. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: The panel provided one conditional recommendation and two expert opinions for adults with HH. The panel suggested routinely performing a fundoplication in the repair of HH, though this was based on low certainty evidence. There was insufficient evidence to make evidence-based recommendations regarding surgical repair of asymptomatic HH or conversion to RYGB in recurrent HH, and therefore, only expert opinions were offered. The panel suggested that select asymptomatic patients may be offered surgical repair, with criteria outlined. Similarly, it suggested that conversion to RYGB for management of recurrent HH may be appropriate in certain patients and again described criteria. The evidence for the routine use of mesh in HH repair was equivocal and the panel deferred making a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of HH and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and consideration of patient values to optimize outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs will improve the evidence base and may allow for stronger recommendations in future evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of HH.

Management of symptomatic, asymptomatic, and recurrent hiatal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The surgical management of hiatal hernia remains controversial. We aimed to compare outcomes of mesh versus no mesh and fundoplication versus no fundoplication in symptomatic patients; surgery versus observation in asymptomatic patients; and redo hernia repair versus conversion to Roux-en-Y reconstruction in recurrent hiatal hernia. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases between 2000 and 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and case series (asymptomatic and recurrent hernias). Screening was performed by two trained independent reviewers. Pooled analyses were performed on comparative data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively. RESULTS: We included 45 studies from 5152 retrieved records. Only six RCTs had low risk of bias. Mesh was associated with a lower recurrence risk (RR = 0.50, 95%CI 0.28, 0.88; I2 = 57%) in observational studies but not RCTs (RR = 0.98, 95%CI 0.47, 2.02; I2 = 34%), and higher total early dysphagia based on five observational studies (RR = 1.44, 95%CI 1.10, 1.89; I2 = 40%) but was not statistically significant in RCTs (RR = 3.00, 95%CI 0.64, 14.16). There was no difference in complications, reintervention, heartburn, reflux, or quality of life. There were no appropriate studies comparing surgery to observation in asymptomatic patients. Fundoplication resulted in higher early dysphagia in both observational studies and RCTs ([RR = 2.08, 95%CI 1.16, 3.76] and [RR = 20.58, 95%CI 1.34, 316.69]) but lower reflux in RCTs (RR = 0.31, 95%CI 0.17, 0.56, I2 = 0%). Conversion to Roux-en-Y was associated with a lower reintervention risk after 30 days compared to redo surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for optimal management of symptomatic and recurrent hiatal hernia remains controversial, underpinned by studies with a high risk of bias. Shared decision making between surgeon and patient is essential for optimal outcomes.

The SAGES MASTERS program bariatric surgery pathway selects 10 seminal publications on revisional bariatrics.

BACKGROUND: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Masters Program designated bariatric surgery as a clinical pathway. Among the tiers of the Masters Program, revisional bariatric surgery is the highest tier of "mastery" within the pathway. This article presents the top 10 seminal studies representing the current landscape of revisional bariatrics. METHODS: The literature was systematically searched and seminal articles designated by consensus agreement of the SAGES Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery committee using multiple criteria, including impact on the field, citation frequency, and expert opinion. Articles were reviewed by committee members and presented in summarized fashion. RESULTS: The top 10 papers are presented in grouped thematic categories covering the early evolution of revisional bariatrics, changing criteria for reoperative bariatric surgery, divergence of revision versus conversion bariatric surgery, and recent technologic innovations in revisional bariatric surgery. Each summary is presented with expert appraisal and commentary. CONCLUSION: These seminal papers represent a snapshot of the dynamic field of revisional bariatric surgery and emphasize the need to not only remain current with contemporary trends but also keep a patient-oriented perspective on patient and intervention selection for optimal success.

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.

The SAGES MASTERS program presents the 10 seminal articles for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: One of the eight clinical pathways of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Masters Program is bariatric surgery which includes three anchoring procedures. For each anchoring procedure sentinel articles have been identified to enhance participant surgeon lifelong learning. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is one of the 3 anchoring procedures for the Bariatric Pathway. In this article we present the top 10 seminal articles regarding the RYGB which surgeons should be familiar with. METHODS: The literature was systematically searched to identify the most cited papers on RYGB. The SAGES Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery committee reviewed the most cited article list and using expert consensus selected the seminal articles that every bariatric surgeon should read. These articles were reviewed in detail by committee members and are presented here. RESULTS: The top 10 most cited sentinel papers on RYGB focus on operative safety, outcomes, surgical technique, and physiologic changes after the procedure. A summary of each paper is presented here, including expert appraisal and commentary. CONCLUSION: The seminal articles presented here have supported the widespread acceptance and use of the RYGB by bolstering the understanding of its mechanism of action and by demonstrating its safety and excellent patient outcomes. All bariatric surgeons should be familiar with these 10 landmark articles.

The first modified Delphi consensus statement on sleeve gastrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the commonest bariatric procedure worldwide. Yet there is significant variation in practice concerning its various aspects. This paper report results from the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise on SG. METHODS: We established a committee of 54 globally recognized opinion makers in this field. The committee agreed to vote on several statements concerning SG. An agreement or disagreement amongst ≥ 70.0% experts was construed as a consensus. RESULTS: The committee achieved a consensus of agreement (n = 71) or disagreement (n = 7) for 78 out of 97 proposed statements after two rounds of voting. The committee agreed with 96.3% consensus that the characterization of SG as a purely restrictive procedure was inaccurate and there was 88.7% consensus that SG was not a suitable standalone, primary, surgical weight loss option for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) without dysplasia. There was an overwhelming consensus of 92.5% that the sleeve should be fashioned over an orogastric tube of 36-40 Fr and a 90.7% consensus that surgeons should stay at least 1 cm away from the angle of His. Remarkably, the committee agreed with 81.1% consensus that SG patients should undergo a screening endoscopy every 5 years after surgery to screen for BE. CONCLUSION: A multinational team of experts achieved consensus on several aspects of SG. The findings of this exercise should help improve the outcomes of SG, the commonest bariatric procedure worldwide, and guide future research on this topic.

SAGES masters program: determining the seminal articles for each pathway.

BACKGROUND: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) has recently developed and announced its Masters Program that aims to address existing needs of practicing surgeons for lifelong learning and consists of eight clinical pathways each containing three anchoring procedures. The objective of this study was to select the seminal articles for each anchoring procedure of these pathways using a systematic methodology. METHODS: A systematic literature search of Web of Science was conducted for the most cited articles for each of the anchoring procedures of the SAGES Masters pathways. The most relevant identified articles were then reviewed by expert members of the relevant SAGES pathway committees and task forces and the seminal articles chosen for each anchoring procedure using expert consensus. RESULTS: 578 highly cited articles were identified by the original search of the literature and the seminal articles were selected for each anchoring procedure after expert review and consensus. Articles address procedural outcomes, disease pathophysiology, and surgical technique and are presented in this paper. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified seminal articles for each anchoring procedure of the SAGES Masters program pathways using a systematic methodology. These articles provide surgeon participants of this program with a great resource to improve their procedure-specific knowledge and may further benefit the larger surgical community by focusing its attention to must-read impactful work that may inform best practices.

Effects of a single subanaesthetic dose of ketamine on pain and mood after laparoscopic bariatric surgery: A randomised double-blind placebo controlled study.

BACKGROUND: When administered as a continuous infusion, ketamine is known to be a potent analgesic and general anaesthetic. Recent studies suggest that a single low-dose administration of ketamine can provide a long-lasting effect on mood, but its effects when given in the postoperative period have not been studied. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesised that a single low-dose administration of ketamine after bariatric surgery can improve pain and mood scores in the immediate postoperative period. DESIGN: We performed a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to compare a single subanaesthetic dose of ketamine (0.4 mg kg) with a normal saline placebo in the postanaesthesia care unit after laparoscopic gastric bypass and gastrectomy. SETTING: Single-centre, tertiary care hospital, October 2014 to January 2018. PATIENTS: A total of 100 patients were randomised into the ketamine and saline groups. INTERVENTION: Patients in the ketamine group received a single dose of ketamine infusion (0.4 mg kg) in the postanaesthesia care unit. Patients in the placebo groups received 0.9% saline. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the visual analogue pain score. A secondary outcome was performance on the short-form McGill's Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in visual analogue pain scores between groups (group-by-time interaction P = 0.966; marginal group effect P = 0.137). However, scores on the affective scale of SF-MPQ (secondary outcome) significantly decreased in the ketamine group as early as postoperative day (POD) 2 [mean difference = -2.2 (95% bootstrap CI -2.9 to 1.6), Bonferroni adjusted P < 0.001], compared with placebo group in which the scores decreased only by POD 7. Scores on the total scale of SF-MPQ for the ketamine group were smaller compared with the placebo group (P = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Although there was no significant difference between ketamine and placebo for the primary outcome measure, patients who received ketamine experienced statistically and clinically significant improvement in their comprehensive evaluation of pain, particularly the affective component of pain, on POD 2. However, future studies are needed to confirm the enduring effects of ketamine on the affective response to postoperative pain. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02452060. : This article is accompanied by the following Invited Commentaries:Mion G. Ketamine stakes in 2018. Right doses, good choices. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2019; 36:1-3.Robu B, Lavand'homme, P. Targeting the affective component of pain with ketamine. A tool to improve the postoperative experience? Eur J Anaesthesiol 2019; 36:4-5.

SAGES review of endoscopic and minimally invasive bariatric interventions: a review of endoscopic and non-surgical bariatric interventions.

BACKGROUND: With obesity continuing as a global epidemic and therapeutic technologies advancing, several novel endoscopic and minimally invasive interventions will likely become available as treatment options. With improved technologies and different treatment strategies, as well as different patient populations being targeted, there will be greater application in the treatment armamentarium of specialists dedicated to treating obesity. We sought to review the existing technology and provide a review. METHODS: Literature review was carried out for endoscopic and minimally invasive devices. Some of these products are not FDA approved, so limited data are available in their review. RESULTS: A summary of the device and data currently available on weight loss and safety profile is provided. Several products are in clinical trials or will be soon. Some of the technology has limited data and companies will be submitting their results for FDA evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The obesity epidemic and associated weight-related diseases represent a tremendous burden to health care practitioners. As such, a multi-modal and progressive approach, with data and outcomes examined, is likely the best and most comprehensive method to care for these patients. SAGES endorses the benefits of minimally invasive and endoscopic approaches in the treatment of obesity and its related co-morbidities.

White Paper AGA: POWER - Practice Guide on Obesity and Weight Management, Education, and Resources.

The epidemic of obesity continues at alarming rates, with a high burden to our economy and society. The American Gastroenterological Association understands the importance of embracing obesity as a chronic, relapsing disease and supports a multidisciplinary approach to the management of obesity. Because gastrointestinal disorders resulting from obesity are more frequent and often present sooner than type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease, gastroenterologists have an opportunity to address obesity and provide an effective therapy early. Patients who are overweight or obese already fill gastroenterology clinics with gastroesophageal reflux disease and its associated risks of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal cancer, gallstone disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, and colon cancer. Obesity is a major modifiable cause of diseases of the digestive tract that frequently goes unaddressed. As internists, specialists in digestive disorders, and endoscopists, gastroenterologists are in a unique position to play an important role in the multidisciplinary treatment of obesity. This American Gastroenterological Association paper was developed with content contribution from Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, The Obesity Society, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, endorsed with input by American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, and Obesity Medicine Association, and describes POWER: Practice Guide on Obesity and Weight Management, Education and Resources. Its objective is to provide physicians with a comprehensive, multidisciplinary process to guide and personalize innovative obesity care for safe and effective weight management.

Previous weight loss as a predictor of weight loss outcomes after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

INTRODUCTION: Weight loss after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) can be influenced by a variety of factors. The objective of this study is to investigate whether the maximum amount of previous weight loss with diet and exercise, prior to evaluation for bariatric surgery, is predictive of postoperative weight loss success among primary LAGB patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was designed from a prospectively collected database at a single institution. Inclusion criteria consisted of age ≥18 years, initial body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m(2), intake information on the maximum weight loss at any time prior to referral to our bariatric practice, and at least 2 years of postoperative follow-up. Patients with prior bariatric surgery were excluded. Outcomes included mean % excess weight loss (EWL), percent that achieved weight loss success (%EWL ≥ 40), and percent with suboptimal weight loss (%EWL < 20) at 2 years post-LAGB. RESULTS: In the study, 462 primary LAGB patients were included. Mean previous weight loss was 29.7 lb (SD 27.6, range 0-175). These patients were divided into four previous weight loss groups (0, 1-20, 21-50, >50 lb) for analysis. In adjusted multivariate analyses, patients with >50 lb of maximum previous weight loss had a significantly higher mean %EWL, (p < 0.0001) and %BMIL (p < 0.0001), were more likely to reach weight loss success (≥40 % EWL, p = 0.047), and were less likely to experience suboptimal weight loss (<20 % EWL, p = 0.027) at 2 years postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Previous weight loss appears to be a significant predictor of weight loss after LAGB. With multiple options for weight loss surgery, this study helps elucidate which patients may be more likely to achieve greater weight loss with the LAGB, allowing clinicians to appropriately counsel patients preoperatively.

The utility of radiological upper gastrointestinal series and clinical indicators in detecting leaks after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a case-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) often presents after hospital discharge, making timely diagnosis difficult. This study evaluates the utility of radiological upper gastrointestinal (UGI) series and clinical indicators in detecting leak after LSG. METHODS: A retrospective case-controlled study of 1762 patients who underwent LSG from 2006 to 2014 was performed. All patients with radiographically confirmed leaks were included. Controls consisted of patients who underwent LSG without leak, selected using a 10:1 case-match. Data included baseline patient characteristics, surgical characteristics, and UGI series results. Clinical indicators including vital signs, SIRS criteria, and pain score were compared between patients who developed leak and controls. RESULTS: Of 1762 LSG operations, 20 (1.1 %) patients developed leaks and were compared with 200 case-matched controls. Three patients developed leak during their index admission [mean = 1.3 days, range (1, 2)], while the majority (n = 17) were discharged and developed symptoms at a mean of 17.1 days [range (4, 63)] postoperatively. Patients diagnosed with leak were similar to controls in baseline and surgical characteristics. Contrast extravasation on routine postoperative UGI identified two patients with early leaks, but was negative in the remainder (89 %). Patients with both early and delayed leaks demonstrated significant clinical abnormalities at the time of leak presentation, prior to confirmatory radiographic study. In multiple regression analysis, independent clinical factors associated with leak included fever [OR 16.6, 95 % CI (4.04, 68.10), p < 0.0001], SIRS criteria [OR 7.0, 95 % CI (1.47, 33.26), p = 0.014], and pain score ≥9 [OR 19.1, 95 % CI (1.38, 263.87), p = 0.028]. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast extravasation on routine postoperative radiological UGI series may detect early leaks after LSG, but the vast majority of leaks demonstrate normal results and present 2-3 weeks after discharge. Therefore, clinical indicators (specifically fever, SIRS criteria, and pain score) are the most useful factors to raise concern for leaks prior to confirmatory radiographic study and may be used as criteria to selectively obtain UGI studies after LSG.

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.

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.

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.

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.