Faculty Bibliography

Introduction: Staple line leak is the most feared complication after sleeve gastrectomy. Intraoperative methylene blue and air leak tests are routinely used to evaluate for leak, however the utility of these tests is controversial. The 2012 International Sleeve Gastrectomy Expert Panel failed to reach a consensus about whether routine intraoperative leak tests should be performed. Additionally, these tests are not benign - they introduce increased instrumentation, with reports of nasogastric tubes causing esophageal perforation, as well as increased costs in the form of resource utilization. We hypothesize that the practice of routine intraoperative leak testing is unnecessary during sleeve gastrectomy. Methods and Procedures: A retrospective cohort study was designed using a prospectively-collected database of seven bariatric surgeons from two institutions. 1,257 consecutive patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomies between March 2012 and June 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, patient demographics, comorbidity, presence or absence of intraoperative leak test, result of leak test, and type of test. The primary outcome was leak rate between the leak test (LT) group and the non-leak test (NLT) group. SPSS-22 was used for univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Of the 1,257 sleeve gastrectomy cases, most (99.68 %) were laparoscopic, except for two (0.16 %) open and two (0.16 %) converted cases. 1,164 (92.6 %) patients had routine intraoperative leak tests performed; there were no positive intraoperative leak tests in the entire cohort. 93 patients (7.4 %) did not have intraoperative leak tests performed. Thirteen (1 %) patients developed staple line leaks, with no difference in leak rate between the LT and NLT groups (1 % vs. 1.1 %, p = 1.000). There were some baseline differences between the groups, however (Table 1). After adjusting for these differences and other possible confounders with binary logistic regression, the observed lack of association between leak and intraoperative leak test remained. In this cohort, leaks presented at a mean of 11.3 days postoperatively (range = [1,35]), with only two leaks presenting during the index admission. Of those two, one patient with a leak seen on postoperative day 1 esophagram underwent a repeat leak test during diagnostic laparoscopy, which was negative. Despite suture reinforcement, the leak persisted and the patient eventually required conversion to gastric bypass. Conclusion: Intraoperative leak testing has no correlation with postoperative leak occurrence after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and is not predictive of the later development of staple line leak. (Table Presented)

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Obesity, metabolic syndrome (MS) and dyslipidemia are independent risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Bariatric surgery is increasingly recognized as an effective intervention for improving each of these risk factors. There are sparse data on the long-term durability of metabolic changes associated with bariatric surgery, in particular with laparoscopic gastric banding (LGB). Our objective was to evaluate the durability of metabolic changes associated with LGB in nonmorbid obesity. METHODS: Fifty obese patients (BMI 30-40) with >/=1 obesity-related comorbidity were prospectively followed for five years. At follow-up, subjects underwent fasting blood measures, including lipid NMR spectroscopy and standard lipid profile. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients (45 female, mean age 43.8 years) completed four years follow-up (46 completed five years). Baseline BMI was 35.1 +/- 2.6. Subjects exhibited mean weight loss of 22.3 +/- 7.9 kg (22.9 +/- 7.4%) at year one and maintained this (19.8 +/- 10.2%) over five years. At baseline, 43% (20/47) of subjects met criteria for MS. This was reduced to 15% (7/47) at year one and remained reduced over five years (13%, 6/46) (p < 0.001). There were reductions in triglycerides (p < 0.001) and increases in HDL cholesterol (HDL-C, p < 0.001) and HDL particle concentration (p = 0.02), with a trend toward increased HDL particle size (p = 0.06) at year five. Changes in triglycerides and HDL-C were more prominent in patients with MS at baseline, but unassociated with weight loss or waist circumference. Changes in HDL particle size and concentration were not associated with MS status, weight loss, waist circumference, or statin use. CONCLUSIONS: LGB produces significant weight loss, resolution of MS and changes in lipid profile suggestive of beneficial HDL remodeling. These changes persist five years following LGB.

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.

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.

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.