Anemia and iron metabolism disorders after single anastomosis sleeve ileal (SASI) bypass. Is it a real problem?

PURPOSE: SASI (single anastomosis sleeve ileal) bypass can lead to nutritional deficiencies, including disorders of iron metabolism and anemia. This study aims to evaluate the effect of SASI bypass on weight loss, anemia, and iron deficiency in patients with obesity during the follow-up period. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from patients who underwent SASI bypass at our hospital between January 2020 and February 2022. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 42 years (range 22-58). The average duration of the follow-up period was 26 months. The mean percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) was 90.1%, and total weight loss (%TWL) was 30.5%. During the postoperative observation period, anemia was identified in ten patients (25%), comprising 70% with normocytic anemia, 10% with microcytic anemia, and two macrocytic anemia cases (20%). Iron deficiency was observed in two patients (5%). CONCLUSION: SASI bypass is an effective bariatric procedure in weight loss outcomes. However, there may be an increased risk of anemia and iron metabolism disruptions associated with this procedure. The common limb length (250 vs. 300 cm) did not significantly impact hemoglobin, iron, TIBC, ferritin levels, or anemia incidence among patients undergoing SASI bypass. The decrease in postoperative ferritin levels signifies a depletion in tissue iron reserves, thereby emphasizing the necessity for surveillance of iron homeostasis parameters following SASI bypass.

Revisional one-anastomosis gastric bypass for failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

The study aimed to evaluate the mid-term weight loss outcomes and complications of revisional one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) following failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). A total of 586 patients underwent LSG from January 2010 to February 2018. Revisional OAGB (rOAGB) was performed in 22 (3.8%) patients. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 20 patients with at least 12 months of follow-up after the revisional OAGB was carried out. The indications for revisional surgery were as follows: insufficient weight loss-4 (20%), weight regain-13 (65%), weight regain and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-2 (10%), and dysphagia with gastroesophageal reflux-1 (5%). The mean interval between the LSG and rOAGB was 35.3 ± 15.4 months (range 4-64). The mean follow-up time after rOAGB was 45.5 ± 17.1 months (range 12-54). At the end of the follow-up after rOAGB, %TWL was 26.4 ± 8.9%, and %EWL was 58.5 ± 21.6%, based on pre-LSG body weight. In all three patients with intractable GERD, the clinical symptoms of reflux retreated after revisional OAGB. The overall complication rate was 20%. In conclusion, the main indications for revision after LSG are weight regain, insufficient weight loss, and intractable GERD. Revisional OAGB emerges as a viable surgical alternative for unsuccessful LSG, presenting notable weight loss outcomes; however, it may be linked to an increased incidence of complications.

Influence of preoperative weight loss on gastric wall thickness-analysis of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy histological material.

PURPOSE: The variables possibly enabling the prediction of gastric wall thickness during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy remain undetermined. The aim of the study was to identify preoperative factors affecting gastric wall thickness in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS: The measurements of the double-wall thickness of gastric specimen excised during sleeve gastrectomy were taken at three locations after 15 s of compression with an applied pressure of 8 g/mm2. Statistical calculations were used to determine the influence of preoperative weight loss and other perioperative parameters on gastric wall thickness. RESULTS: The study involved one hundred patients (78 female; 22 male). The thickest tissue was observed at the antrum with the mean value 2.55 mm (range 1.77-4.0 mm), followed by the midbody, mean 2.13 mm (range 1.34-3.20 mm), and the fundus, mean 1.69 mm (range 0.99-2.69 mm). Positive relationships were found between gastric wall thickness and both preoperative weight loss and age in all three measured locations; p < 0.05. In a linear regression model, age and preoperative weight loss were found to be statistically significant and positive predictors of higher gastric wall thickness only at the antrum. Male patients were observed to have thicker gastric wall at all three locations as compared to female patients. CONCLUSION: Preoperative weight loss should be considered an important factor influencing gastric wall thickness. Age and gender can also be helpful in predicting the varying tissue thickness. Anatomical region is a key factor determining thickness of the stomach walls.