Effectiveness of Bariatric Surgery for Improving Thyroid Function and Reducing Levothyroxine Dose in Patients With Obesity and Overt Hypothyroidism.

BACKGROUND:  Hypothyroidism is a major hormonal condition that affects more women than men in Saudi Arabia. Studies indicate a bidirectional link between hypothyroidism and obesity, which may improve following bariatric surgery (BS). The focus of this research is to assess how hypothyroidism patients' thyroid function and levothyroxine dosage are impacted by bariatric surgery. METHODOLOGY: This was an observational retrospective study conducted in two centres at Taif, Saudi Arabia. All morbidly obese patients who were diagnosed with overt hypothyroidism and underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy from January 2016 to December 2021 were included. The changes in the thyroid profile and the changes in the doses or cessation of levothyroxine were evaluated after the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. RESULTS: Our results demonstrate that a total of 70 patients dominated by women out of 1202 from both centers who meet our inclusion criteria showed a statistically significant decrease on comparison of clinical parameters (thyroid-stimulating hormone [TSH], free T4 [FT4], free T3 [FT3], levothyroxine [L-T4]) before and after BS. The average TSH levels were determined to be 4.45 ± 4.41 mIU/L prior to BS, and they significantly decreased (3.17 ± 2.77 mIU/L) following BS (p=0.009). When compared to before BS (13.17 ± 2.73 pmol/L), the mean FT4 levels after BS (11.63 ± 5.88 pmol/L) exhibited a significant decline (p=0.046). The mean FT3 levels before and after BS also were statistically significantly lower (1.94 ± 2.12 pg/mL) than before (2.75 ± 1.96 pg/mL), p=0.009. The mean L-T4 levels after BS considerably decreased from before BS (98.68 ± 56.18 mcg) to after BS (79.39 ± 41.49 mcg), p=0.046. CONCLUSION: Better thyroid profiles and lower levothyroxine dosage show that bariatric surgery improves hypothyroidism.

Outcomes of laparoscopic revisional conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: Diff erent strategies for obese and non-obese Asian patients.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most performed bariatric procedure now. Some patients would necessitate a revision to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as a salvage procedure for intractable gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, outcome of the revision in Asians with co-existed obesity and those non-obese is not clear. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who underwent revisional laparoscopic RYGB after SG between 2007 and 2019 for intractable GERD with data of one year follow-up. Pre-operative clinical data, perioperative outcomes, GERD symptoms, weight loss and medication details were analyzed. Patients were classified into those with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 and < 25 kg/m2. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients (44 women, 11 men; mean age 42.5 years) were included. Mean interval from the initial SG to revision surgery was 51.2 months (range, 5-132). Mean body mass index before SG was 34.6 kg/m2, whereas that before revision surgery was 27.6 kg/m2. All the patients required continue proton pump inhibitor (PPI) to control the GERD symptoms before surgery. Among them, 36 (65.4%) patients in the obese group received long BP limb (>100 cm) RYGB for associated obesity but the common channel was assured to ≥ 400 cm or 70% of small bowel length, the other 19 (34.6%) patients in the non-obese group received standard BP limb (<100 cm) RYGB. There was no difference in basic characters between the two groups before revision surgery except a higher mean BMI (30.0 vs. 22.2 kg/m2, p < 0.001), blood pressure and triglyceride in obese group. One year after revision surgery, all the patients had improved GERD symptoms but only 33 (60%) can completely wave PPI, without difference between the 2 groups. Obese group with a long BP limb RYGB had a significant higher % total weight loss (TWL) than non-obese group (%TWL 9.1% vs. -3.1%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic revision to RYGB is a safe and effective treatment for patients with intractable GERD after SG but some patients may still have residual GERD symptoms. Using a modified RYGB technique in revision surgery may help in weight reduction for obese Asian patients.

Probiotics for gallstone prevention in patients with bariatric surgery: A prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Gall stone disease was known to increase after bariatric surgery. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) might reduce the gallstone formation rate after bariatric surgery. However, other option for gallstone prevention was unclear. We reported the result of a randomized trial comparing the gallstone prevention efficacy of probiotics and digestive enzyme versus UDCA. METHODS: This prospective, randomized trial was held in an institute of Taiwan. Patients were eligible for inclusion if their body-mass index (BMI) was 32.5 kg/m2 or higher with the presence of comorbidity, or 27.5 kg/mw or higher with not-well controlled type 2 diabetes, and were aged 18-65 years. Participant were randomized assigned (1:1:1) to probiotic, digestive enzyme or UDCA. The primary endpoint was assessed in the incidence of gallstone disease at 6 months after surgery. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. number NCT03247101, and is now completed. RESULTS: From January 2016 to December 2018, of 186 patients screened for eligibility, 152 were randomly assigned to probiotic (52) or digestive enzyme (52) or UDCA (52). In the per-protocol population, mean age was 35.9 years (SD 10.6), mean BMI was 40.3 kg/m2 (SD 6.9), 57(58.2%) were female. After 6 months, the incidence of gall bladder diseased was 15.2%, in the probiotics group, 17.6% in UDCA group and 29.1% in digestive enzyme groups, confirming non-inferiority of probiotic (p = 0.38). Female gender was identified as a risk factor for gall bladder disease after bariatric surgery (odds ratio = 4.61, 95% confidence interval = 1.05, 20.3, p = 0.04). The poor drug compliance rate was 19.5%, 22.7% and 26.2% in probiotics, UDCA and digestive enzyme group respectively. UDCA group had a higher drug adverse effect than probiotic group (15.9% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Probiotic is not inferior to UDCA regarding gall bladder disease prevention after bariatric surgery at 6 months.

Change of cardiovascular risk associated serologic biomarkers after gastric bypass: A comparison of diabetic and non-diabetic Asian patients.

BACKGROUND: While clinical findings demonstrate a superior benefit of cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction in obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) receiving bariatric surgery over non-T2D patients, the mechanism is unclear. This study aimed to investigate the changes in the CV risk score and five CV-associated biomarkers after gastric bypass surgery. METHOD: We enrolled 80 obese subjects who underwent gastric bypass (40 T2D and 40 non-T2D). CV risks were assessed using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) engine before and after surgery. Levels of five biomarkers -fasting serum fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-19, FGF-21, corin, oxidized low-density lipoprotein (ox-LDL), and soluble receptor for advanced glycation end-products (sRAGE)-were measured before surgery and one year after surgery. RESULTS: The T2D group was significantly older and had a higher CV risk score than the non-T2D group, but body mass index (BMI) was similar between the groups. Preoperative biomarker levels were similar in both the T2D and the non-T2D groups. One year after surgery, the percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) was similar between the two groups (32.2 ± 19.5% versus 34.1% ± 8.8%, p = 0.611). Complete T2D remission (hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 6.0%) was achieved in 29 patients (72.5%). The 10-year CV risk scores by the UKPDS risk engine reduced significantly in both the T2D and the non-T2D groups, but more in the T2D group. Three of five biomarkers changed significantly after surgery: the FGF-19 increased from 195.6 ± 249.1 pg/mL to 283.2 ± 211.8 pg/mL, corin increased from 3.3 ± 2.3 ng/mL to 4.6 ± 3.7 ng/mL, and ox-LDL decreased from 148.5 ± 71.7-107.9 U/L; the P values were 0.002, 0.002 and < 0.001, respectively. The T2D group showed a significantly different change in FGF-19 increase and FGF-21 decrease compared to the non-T2D group. The changes in corin and ox-LDL levels were not different between the T2D and non-T2D groups. CONCLUSION: Gastric bypass surgery resulted in a higher UKPDS CV risk score reduction in obese T2D Asians than in those without. FGF-19 and FGF-21 may be associated with the underlying mechanism of this difference.

Long-Term Efficacy of Bariatric Surgery for the Treatment of Super-Obesity: Comparison of SG, RYGB, and OAGB.

BACKGROUND: The most appropriate procedure for the treatment of super obesity (BMI > 50 kg/m2) is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the safety, long-term (> 5 years) weight loss, and adverse events between three commonly performed procedures, sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) in super-obese patients. METHODS: Between January 2002 and December 2015, 498 successive patients with super morbid obesity (BMI > 50), who underwent SG or RYGB or OAGB, were recruited. Surgical outcome, weight loss, resolution of co-morbidities, and late complications were followed and compared between the 3 groups. All data derived from a prospective bariatric database and a retrospective analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The average patient age was 32.1 ± 10.4 years, with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 56.0 ± 6.7 kg/m2. Of them, 190 (38.9%) underwent SG, 62 (12.4%) RYGB, and 246 (49.4%) OAGB. There was no difference in basic characters between the 3 groups except SG had fewer diabetic patients. RYGB group had higher intraoperative blood loss, longer operating time, and hospital stay than the other 2 groups. RYGB had a higher 30-days post-operative major complication rate (4.8%) than SG (0.5%) and OAGB (0.8%). The follow-up rate at 1 and 5 years was 89.4% and 52.0%. At post-operative 5 years, OAGB had a higher total weight loss (40.8%) than SG (35.1%), but not RYGB (37.2%). SG had a lower remission rate in dyslipidemia comparing to OAGB and RYGB, but T2DM remission rate was no different between the groups. The overall revision rate is 5.4% (27/498) of the whole group, and SG had a lower revision rate (2.6%) than RYGB (8.1%) and OAGB (6.9%). CONCLUSION: SG is an effective and durable primary bariatric procedure for the treatment of super obesity and metabolic disorders. OAGB had a similar operation risk to SG but resulted in a better weight loss than SG.

Variation in Small Bowel Length and Its Influence on the Outcomes of Sleeve Gastrectomy.

PURPOSE: Small bowel length is drawing attention in the development of gastrointestinal bariatric/metabolic surgery, but the importance of the length of the small bowel in bariatric/metabolic is not clear. The present study was conducted to investigate variations in small bowel length and their clinical significance in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Small bowel length was measured in 620 patients diagnosed with obesity who underwent LSG between March 2014 and August 2018. Prospectively obtained demographic and clinical data were investigated, focusing on the association between small bowel length and weight loss. RESULTS: Small bowel length varied widely among patients (mean 739.8 + 115.7 cm, range 380-1050 cm). Linear regression analysis revealed a significant association between small bowel length and body height, body weight, waist circumference, and serum levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, hemoglobin, C-peptide, glycated hemoglobin (A1C), and gamma-glutamyl transferase (r-GT). Multivariate analysis confirmed that body height and serum A1C% levels independently predicted small bowel length in bariatric patients, strongly with body height (p < 0.001) but weakly with A1C%(p = 0.021). One-year follow-up rate was 75.3% (467/620), and small bowel length did not influence weight loss or the reduction of obesity related cardiovascular risk factors after LSG. CONCLUSION: In this study, small bowel length varied widely among bariatric patients and was strongly associated with body height and weakly with serum A1C levels. Small bowel length has no significant role in weight loss or the resolution of cardiovascular risk factors after LSG.

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Long-Term Result and Recurrence of Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is becoming a primary bariatric/metabolic surgical procedure for treating obesity and related type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). This study presents the long-term outcome of LSG about the remission and recurrence of T2D. METHODS: A total of 59 obese patients (38 women and 21 male) with T2D (mean body mass index [BMI] 37.6 ± 5.1 kg/m2) who underwent LSG from 2006 to 2014 with complete 5 years followed up were selected for present study. The remission of T2D was evaluated in stratified groups using the ABCD scoring system which is composed of the age, BMI, C-peptide, and duration of T2D. RESULTS: The weight loss at 5 years after surgery was 23.5% and the mean BMI decreased to 27.7 ± 4.5 kg/m2. The mean HbA1c decreased from 8.1 to 6.1% at 5 years. The 1-year and 5-year complete remission rate (HbA1c < 6.0%) was 62.7% and 42.4%. Thirteen patients (35.1%) out of 37 patients who had their T2D remission at 1 year had their T2D recurrent at 5 years. Patients with ABCD score higher than 5 had a higher long-term T2D remission rate and less recurrence of their T2D than those with ABCD score less than 5. The remission and recurrence of T2D after were associated with a weight loss more than 20%. CONCLUSION: LSG is an effective procedure for T2D treatment but a significant portion of patients had their T2D recurrence at long-term. LSG is better recommended to patients with their ABCD score ≥ 5 and dedication to maintain a good weight loss is important.

Measuring the small bowel length may decrease the incidence of malnutrition after laparoscopic one-anastomosis gastric bypass with tailored bypass limb.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic one (single)-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is an effective and durable treatment for morbidly obese patients. However, the ideal length of the small bowel bypass remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to report the clinical results of using a tailored bypass based on the total length of the small bowel. SETTING: Academic medical center. METHODS: Since 2005, we have performed OAGB with tailored limb according to preoperative body mass index. From July 2014, we modified our technique, measuring the whole small bowel length to keep the common channel at least 400-cm long. Data from 470 patients treated with the new technique (Group II) were compared with those of a matched group treated with tailored bypass only (Group I). The preoperative clinical data and outcomes were analyzed. All clinical data were prospectively collected and stored. RESULTS: Both groups had similar clinical profiles at baseline. All procedures were completed laparoscopically. Group II had a significant longer operation time (161.9 versus 122.6 min; P < .001), but shorter hospital stay (2.9 versus 5.3 d; P < .001) and lower complication rate (.2% versus 1.5%; P = .002) than Group I. One year after surgery, the mean body mass index (27.4 versus 26.8 kg/m2; P = .244), percent total weight loss (32.0% versus 34.0%; P = .877), and diabetes remission rate (84.7% versus 84.1%; P = .876) were comparable between the 2 groups. However, Group II patients had a significantly lower incidence of anemia (5.9% versus 11.1%; P < .001), secondary hyperparathyroidism (21.7% versus 33.8%; P < .001) and hypoalbuminemia (1.5% versus 2.8%; P < .001) than did Group I. CONCLUSION: Routine measurement of the whole bowel length to keep the common channel at least 400-cm long may reduce the incidence of malnutrition after OAGB with tailored limb bypass, without compromising efficacy in weight loss and diabetes resolution.

Randomized Controlled Trial of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass for Obesity: Comparison of the YOMEGA and Taiwan Studies.

BACKGROUND: The YOMEGA study (Y-study) was a randomized trial comparing one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Here, we aim to compare the Y-study and our pioneer trial from Taiwan (T-study). METHODS: Data from the Y-study and the T-study were collected and compared. RESULTS: The Y-study recruited 234 patients with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 43.9 and age of 43.5 years. The T-study recruited 80 patients with a similar mean BMI of 44.3 and mean age of 31.4 years. The studies had similar findings including (1) OAGB is easier and possibly safer procedure than RYGB. Both studies showed that OAGB had a shorter operation time than RYGB, but a lower surgical complication rate was only demonstrated in T-study. (2) Both procedures have similar weight loss but OAGB features better glycemic control than RYGB. Weight loss at 2 years after surgery was similar between two procedures, but OAGB reduced HbA1c to a greater degree than RYGB at 2 years in Y-study (- 2.3% vs. - 1.3%; p = 0.025). The resolution of the metabolic syndrome was 100% for both groups in the T-study. (3) OAGB carried a higher risk of malnutrition. OAGB had more malabsorptive problems with a lower hemoglobin level than RYGB at 2 years after surgery. Adverse malnutrition events occurred in nine (7.8%) OAGB patients in the Y-study. Four (3.4%) patients of OAGB received revision surgery in Y-study but none in T-study. (4) Bile reflux was noted in OAGB patients but did not influence quality of life or revision rate. Y-study found that bile in the gastric pouch was present in 16% of patients in the OAGB group versus none in the RYGB, but no inter-group difference in quality of life was detected. There was a trend for RYGB patients to experience more abdominal pain than OAGB. CONCLUSIONS: Both studies showed that OAGB is a technically easier procedure and features better glycemic control than RYGB, but has a mal-absorptive effect. However, the bile reflux and abdominal pain controversies persisted.

Revision of Sleeve Gastrectomy with Hiatal Repair with Gastropexy for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is the major drawback of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Conversion to Roux-en-Y bypass is recommended but might not be suitable for all patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who underwent laparoscopic hiatal repair and gastropexy for intractable GERD after LSG between 2015 and 2017. Data on upper gastrointestinal (GI) study findings and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use was collected. The GERD-health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire assessed patient symptoms. Perioperative outcomes, GERD symptoms, and medication details were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were included. Mean interval from the initial LSG to revision surgery was 40.8 months (range, 6-108). Mean body mass index before LSG was 34 kg/m2, whereas that before revision surgery was 25.7 kg/m2. Mean revision surgery time was 126 min, whereas the mean length of stay was 3.6 days. No major surgical complication occurred. The mean GERD-HRQL score before revision surgery was 24.3 and decreased to 12.3 at 1 month after surgery. Mean GERD-HRQL scores at 6, 12, and 24 months after revision surgery were 16.8, 17.4, and 18.9, respectively. All patients required daily proton pump inhibitor pre-operatively; only 26% could discontinue them postoperatively. Of the 28 patients, 14 (50.0%) were satisfied with the surgery, 8 (28.6%) had a neutral attitude, and 6 (21.4%) were dissatisfied. Three (11.1%) patients agreed to undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. CONCLUSION: Hiatal repair with gastropexy is an acceptable treatment option for GERD after LSG but not very effective because of partial remission of symptoms.

Laparoscopic gastric bypass for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a comparison of Roux-en-Y versus single anastomosis gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, gastric bypass surgery has been found to have therapeutic potential for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the difference between 2 bypass procedures, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and another single anastomosis gastric bypass (SAGB), is not clear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the differences between SAGB and RYGB in the efficacy of T2D remission in obese patients. SETTING: Tertiary teaching hospital. METHODS: Outcomes of 406 (259 women and 147 male) patients who had undergone RYGB (157) or SAGB (249) for the treatment of T2D with 1-year follow-up were assessed. The remission of T2D after surgery was evaluated in matched groups, including body mass index (BMI) and the ABCD scoring system, which comprises patient age, BMI, C-peptide levels, and duration of T2D (yr). RESULTS: The weight loss of the SAGB patients at 1 year after surgery was better than the RYGB patients (24.1% [8.4%] versus 30.7% [8.7%]; P<.001). The mean BMI decreased from 39.9 (8.0) to 27.4 (4.6) kg/m2 in SAGB patients at 1 year after surgery and decreased from 34.5 (6.6) to 26.2 (4.2) kg/m2 in the RYGB patients. The mean glycated hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) decreased from 8.6% to 6.2% of the RYGB group and from 8.6% to 5.5% of the SAGB group. Eighty-seven (55.4%) patients of the RYGB group and 204 (81.9%) of the SAGB group achieved complete remission of T2D (HbA1C<6.0%) at 1 year after surgery (P<.001). SAGB exhibited significantly better glycemic control than RYGB surgery in selected groups stratified by different BMI and ABCD score. At 5 years after surgery, SAGB still had a better remission of T2D than RYGB (70.5% versus 39.4%; P = .002). Multivariate analysis confirms that both SAGB and ABCD score are independent predictors of T2D remission after bypass surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Both RYGB and SAGB are effective metabolic surgery. SAGB carries a higher power on T2D remission than RYGB in a small group of patients. ABCD score is useful in T2D patient classification and selection for different procedures.

Revisional Gastric Bypass for Failed Restrictive Procedures: Comparison of Single-Anastomosis (Mini-) and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.

BACKGROUND: Ten to 50% of patients who received restrictive bariatric operations may require reoperation for unsatisfactory weight loss or weight regain. Failed restrictive procedures are usually managed with conversion to another bariatric procedure with a favor of conversion to laparoscopic gastric bypass. Our aim is to evaluate two different bypass techniques, laparoscopic RY gastric bypass (RYGB) versus single-anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass (SAGB) as a revision option (R-RYGB and R-SAGB) for failed restrictive bariatric operations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From May 2001 to December 2015, a total of 116 patients with failed restrictive bariatric operations underwent laparoscopic revisional bypass surgery (81 R-SAGB and 35 R-RYGB). Among them, 81 were failed after vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) and 35 were after adjustable gastric band (AGB). The demographic data, surgical parameters, and outcomes were studied. RESULTS: The average age at revision surgery was 35.7 years (range 22-56), and the average body mass index (BMI) before reoperation was 37.2 kg/m2 (29.0-51.8). Revision surgery was performed after 58.8 months from the primary surgery on average (14-180 months). The main reasons for the revisions were weight regain (50.9%), inadequate weight loss (31%), and intolerance (18.1%). All of the procedures were completed laparoscopically as one-stage procedure. R-RYGB had significantly longer operative times than R-SAGB. Major complication occurred in 12 (10%) patients without significant difference between R-SAGB group and R-RYGB group. At 1 year follow-up, weight loss was better in R-SAGB than R-RYGB (76.8 vs. 32.9% EWL; p = 0.001). At 5 year follow-up, a significantly lower hemoglobin level was found in R-SAGB group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Both SAGB and RYGB are acceptable options for revising a restrictive type of bariatric procedures with equal safety profile. R-SAGB was shown to be a simpler procedure with better weight reduction than R-RYGB but anemia is a considerable complication at long-term follow-up.