Re-emergence of diabetes after gastric bypass in patients with mid- to long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that type 2 diabetes (T2DM) improves or resolves shortly after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Few data are available on T2DM recurrence or the effect of weight regain on T2DM status. METHODS: A review of 42 RYGB patients with T2DM and >or=3 years of follow-up and laboratory data was performed. Postoperative weight loss and T2DM status was assessed. Recurrence or worsening was defined as hemoglobin A1c >6.0% and fasting glucose >124 mg/dL and/or medication required after remission or improvement. Patients whose T2DM recurred or worsened were compared with those whose did not, and patients whose T2DM improved were compared with those whose T2DM resolved. RESULTS: T2DM had either resolved or improved in all patients (64% and 36%, respectively); 24% (10) recurred or worsened. The patients with recurrence or worsening had had a lower preoperative body mass index than those without recurrence or worsening (47.9 versus 52.9 kg/m2; P = .05), regained a greater percentage of their lost weight (37.7% versus 15.4%; P = .002), had a greater weight loss failure rate (63% versus 14%; P = .03), and had greater postoperative glucose levels (138 versus 102 mg/dL; P = .0002). Patients who required insulin or oral medication before RYGB were more likely to experience improvement rather than resolution (92% versus 8%, P

Adjustable gastric banding as revisional bariatric procedure after failed gastric bypass--intermediate results.

BACKGROUND: Although gastric bypass is the most common bariatric procedure in the United States, it is has been associated with a failure rate of 15% (range 5-40%). The addition of an adjustable gastric band to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass has been reported to be a useful revision strategy in a small series of patients with inadequate weight loss after proximal gastric bypass. METHODS: We report on 22 patients who presented with inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain after proximal gastric bypass. All patients underwent revision with the placement of an adjustable silicone gastric band around the proximal gastric pouch. The bands were adjusted at 6 weeks postoperatively and beyond, as needed. Complications and weight loss at the most recent follow-up visit were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean age and body mass index at revision was 41.27 years (range 25-58) and 44.8 +/- 6.34 kg/m(2), respectively. Patients had experienced a loss of 19%, 27%, 47.3%, 42.3%, 43%, and 47% of their excess weight at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months after the revisional procedure, respectively. Three major complications occurred requiring reoperation. No band erosions have been documented. CONCLUSION: The results from this larger series of patients have also indicated that the addition of the adjustable silicone gastric band causes significant weight loss in patients with poor weight loss outcomes after gastric bypass. That no anastomosis or change in absorption is required makes this an attractive revisional strategy. As with all revisional procedures, the complication rates appear to be increased compared with a similar primary operation.

Differential effects of gastric bypass and banding on circulating gut hormone and leptin levels.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify plasma concentrations of hormones that regulate energy homeostasis in order to establish possible mechanisms for greater weight loss after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) compared with gastric banding (BND). RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Four groups of women were studied: lean (n = 8; mean BMI, 21.6 kg/m2); BND (n = 9; BMI, 35.8; 25% weight loss), RYGBP (n = 9; BMI, 34.2; 36% weight loss), and controls matched for BMI to the surgical groups (n = 11; BMI, 34.4). RESULTS: Fasting total peptide YY (PYY) and PYY(3-36) immunoreactivity were similar among all groups, but the postprandial response in the RYGBP group was exaggerated, such that 30 minutes after the meal, total and PYY(3-36) levels were 2- to 4-fold greater compared with all other groups. Maximal postprandial suppression of total ghrelin was blunted in the BND group (13%) compared with RYGBP (27%). Postprandial suppression of octanoylated ghrelin was also less in BND (29%) compared with RYGBP (56%). Fasting insulin was lower in RYGBP (6.6 microU/mL) compared with BND (10.0 microU/mL). Compared with lean controls, leptin concentrations were significantly higher in BND but not in RYGBP. There was a greater increase in post-meal satiety in the RYGBP group compared with BND and overweight controls. DISCUSSION: The differences between RYGBP and BND subjects in postprandial concentrations of PYY and ghrelin would be expected to promote increased satiety and earlier meal termination in RYGBP and may aid in greater weight loss. The differences in insulin and leptin concentrations associated with these procedures may also reflect differences in insulin sensitivity and energy partitioning.

Adjustable gastric banding as a revisional bariatric procedure after failed gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate weight loss after proximal gastric bypass presents a clinical challenge to bariatric surgeons. Pouch size, stoma size and limb length are the variables that can be surgically altered. Aside from conversion to distal bypass, which may have significant negative nutritional sequelae, revisional surgery for this group of patients has not often been reported. The addition of adjustable silicone gastric banding (ASGB) to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) may be a useful revision strategy because it has potential safety benefits over other revisional approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report on 8 patients who presented with inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain after proximal gastric bypass. All patients underwent revision with the placement of an ASGB around the proximal gastric pouch. Bands were adjusted at 6 weeks postoperatively and beyond as needed. Complications and weight loss at the most recent follow-up visit were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean age and body mass index (BMI) at the time of revision were 39 +/- 9.9 years and 44.0 +/- 4.5 kg/m2 respectively. No patients were lost to follow-up, and they lost an average of 38.1 +/- 10.4% and 44.0 +/- 36.3% of excess weight and 49.1 +/- 20.9% and 52.0 +/- 46.0% of excess BMI in 12 and 24 months respectively. Patients lost an average of 62.0 +/- 20.5% of excess weight from the combined surgeries in 67 (48-84) months. The only complication was the development of a seroma overlying the area of the port adjustment in one patient. There have been no erosions or band slippages to date. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the addition of an ASGB causes significant weight loss in patients with poor weight loss outcome after RYGBP. The fact that no anastomosis or change in absorption is required may make this an attractive revisional strategy. Long- term evaluation in a larger population is warranted.