Convincing 10-Year Follow-up Results of the Banded Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.

INTRODUCTION: Several studies have shown the positive effect on weight loss of the banded Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (BRYGB). Thus far, studies describing the 10-year post-operative results are scarce. Therefore, the aim of this study was to describe the weight loss results, effect on associated medical problems, and complication rates during 10 years of follow-up after BRYGB. METHOD: Data were collected from patients who underwent laparoscopic BRYGB with a non-adjustable silicone gastric ring between January 2011 and March 2013. All patients were included when found to be eligible according to the IFSO criteria. RESULTS: One hundred forty-nine patients were included, 110 received a primary BRYGB and 39 received a conversional BRYGB. The primary BRYGB group consisted of 68% female patients with a mean BMI of 44.5 kg/m2 and a mean age of 46 years old. The conversional group consisted of 77% females and had a mean BMI of 34.8 kg/m2 and a mean age of 48 years. At 10-year follow-up, 67.1% of the data was available. Ten-year post-operative 30% total weight loss was seen in the primary group, and 7% in the conversional group. In 10 years, 23% of the patients had complications of which half were ring-related. CONCLUSION: The addition of a silicon ring to the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass may result in substantial and stable weight loss maintenance 10 years post-operative. Furthermore, the number of patients with long-term complications was low and the number of associated medical problems was significantly reduced.

Laparoscopic Conversion of Vertical Banded Gastroplasty to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Gives Better Result Compared to an Open Approach.

BACKGROUND: Vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) has a relatively high failure rate in the long run, requiring revisional surgery in 30-65%. A common conversion option is to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), which can be performed laparoscopically or open. Current literature contains small cohorts and inconclusive results. Therefore, we set out to compare our series of open and laparoscopic VBG to RYGB conversions. METHODS: All conversions performed between 1996 and 2020 were included. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on conversion indication: weight recurrence (group 1), excessive weight loss (group 2), and eating/pouch difficulties (group 3). The primary outcome was postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification. Secondary outcome was %total weight loss (%TWL) 1 to 5 years after revisional surgery. RESULTS: We included 205 patients (84.9% female) of whom 105 underwent laparoscopic and 100 open VBG to RYGB conversion. Twenty-three short-term complications occurred in the laparoscopic group, with 16 > CD3a. In the open group, 33 complications occurred with 12 > CD3a. Overall complications were 33.3% in laparoscopic and 64% in open patients. There were no significant differences between the laparoscopic and open group in BMI (p = 0.76) and %TWL (p = 0.694) after 5 years. After 5 years, lost to follow-up was 97% in the open group. Twenty-eight percent of patients who reached follow-up in the laparoscopic group had available data. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that the overall complication rate is lower in the laparoscopic group compared to the open group. Regarding BMI, an improvement was achieved in both groups after 5 years.

Higher Preoperative Weight loss Is Associated with Greater Weight Loss up to 12 Months After Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Prior research suggested presurgical weight loss is associated with greater total weight loss, resulting in a more effective bariatric intervention. We aimed to assess whether preoperative weight loss is a predictor for total weight loss, and which patient factors are associated with successful weight loss. METHODS: All patients (N = 773) that underwent primary bariatric surgery between June 2017 and August 2019 were included in this single-center retrospective study. Outcome measures were preoperative weight loss (%preopWL) and total weight loss (%TWL) up to 1 year postoperatively. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on quartiles of %preopWL. RESULTS: Total weight loss after 1, 6, and 12 months for the upper quartile was 16.9%, 33.4%, and 37.8%, and for the lower quartile 11.8%, 28.9%, and 35.2%, respectively (p < 0.001). Seven hundred fourteen patients (92.4%) were available for the 1-year follow-up. Preoperative weight loss was not associated with the incidence of complications. Independent factors predicting increased %preopWL were mandated preoperative weight loss program (MWP) (p < 0.001), older age (p = 0.005), weight measurement in the week before surgery (p = 0.031), and non-diabetic status (p = 0.010). Predictors for superior %TWL were MWP (p = 0.014), younger age (p = 0.001), non-diabetic status (p = 0.005), female gender (p = 0.001), higher Body Mass Index (p = 0.006), and banded gastric bypass (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Higher preoperative weight loss is associated with persisting greater weight loss up to at least 12 months post-surgery. In order to optimize preoperative weight loss, we recommend extra preoperative support to younger and diabetic patients. We advise nutritional counseling and additional weight measurement in the week before surgery.

Impact of Laparoscopic Banded Gastric Bypass on Weight Loss Surgery Outcomes: 5 Years' Experience.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate 5-year outcomes of banded gastric bypass (BRYGB) as a primary and conversion bariatric procedure. METHODS: Retrospective review of BRYGB between January 2011and March 2013. Outcomes included percentage of total weight loss (%TWL), weight loss maintenance, and band-related complications. RESULTS: One hundred forty-two patients underwent BRYGB, 106 primary and 36 conversions. Indications for conversion to BRYGB were complications of the primary procedure (n = 19), insufficient weight loss (n = 5), and weight regain (n = 12). In the primary group, mean preoperative BMI was 44.8 kg/m2 (± 6.9 kg/m2). Compared with preoperative weight, mean %TWL was 33.9% (n = 95), 34.1% (n = 82), 34.0% (n = 70), 33.9% (n = 62), and 31.8% (n = 75) after 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years, respectively. In conversions secondary to failed primary procedure (insufficient WL and weight regain), mean preoperative BMI was 40.8 kg/m2 (± 6.01 kg/m2). Despite one patient gaining weight, mean %TWL was 25.7% (n = 13), 28% (n = 11), 23.9% (n = 8), 18.3% (n = 8), and 15.1% (n = 12) after 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years, respectively. In conversions secondary to primary procedure complications (n = 19), mean preoperative BMI was 28.4 kg/m2 (± 3.5 kg/m2). After 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years, mean BMI was 28.1 (n = 15), 29 (n = 10), 29.8 (n = 9), 30.6 (n = 10), and 30.9 (n = 12) kg/m2, respectively. Band-related complications after 5 years: three erosion and five patients complained of persistent dysphagia. One band needed reposition. Perioperative surgical complications: two bleeding, one leakage, one port-site hernia, and one food impaction. CONCLUSION: Banded gastric bypass has good results in terms of weight loss and weight loss maintenance in both primary and conversional bariatric procedures with acceptable incidence of band-related complications.

Fast Track Program in Conversion Bariatric Surgery, as Safe as in Primary Bariatric Surgery?

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the safety of fast track (FT) surgery program in patients undergoing primary and revisional bariatric surgery (conversion from one procedure to another); identify limiting factors for early discharge and predictive factors for readmission. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 730 consecutive morbidly obese patients who underwent bariatric surgery between January 2016 and December 2017. Fast track protocol was applied on all patients. Target discharge was after one-night stay. The primary end point is length of stay. The secondary end point is frequency of hospital contact after discharge, readmissions and reinterventions within 30 days. RESULTS: Primary procedures (n = 633) were banded Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (BRYGB, 79.3%), sleeve gastrectomy (10.7%), gastric band (4.7%) and others (5.3%). Mean age (± SD) was 44.32 ± 11.26 years, and mean BMI (± SD) was 43.58 ± 6.12 kg/m2. Conversion procedures (n = 97) were gastric band to BRYGB (40.2%), or to adjustable BRYGB (39.2%), Mason to BRYGB (11.3%), sleeve to BRYGB (4.1%) and others (5.2%). Mean age (± SD) was 47.22 ± 9.1 years, and mean BMI (± SD) was 37.9 ± 7.27 kg/m2. Mean LOS in primary patients was 1.3 ± 0.99, and that in conversion patients was 1.5 ± 1.4. Successful discharge at one night or less was achieved in 650 cases (573 primary and 77 conversion). After one-night discharge, incidence of contact to the hospital, readmission and reintervention was 23.9%, 5.9% and 1.9%, in the primary group and 31.2%, 13% and 5.2% in the conversion group. CONCLUSION: One-night discharge in FT managed conversion procedures is safe, compared to primary procedures. It is associated with higher readmission rates; however, the postdischarge hospital contacts and surgical complications were not statistically significant different.

Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Adjustable Banded Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Should We Leave the Band in Place?

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is rapidly becoming a deprecated bariatric procedure due to disappointing weight loss results and a high rate of band intolerance. Conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is a common revisional procedure after failed LAGB. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and risk profile of conversion to adjustable banded Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (ABRYGB). METHODS: A retrospective patient file review of all consecutive laparoscopic conversions of LAGB to ABRYGB 2008-2017. Pre/perioperative data, weight change, and long-/short-term complications were retrieved. RESULTS: Study population 98 patients. Mean BMI before revision was 40,15 kg/m2. Most revisional procedures were performed for band intolerance and/or weight regain or weight loss failure. All procedures were performed laparoscopically. During follow-up, 16 bands had to be removed due to one of the following reasons: infection, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic peptic perforation, adhesions around the anastomosis, internal hernia around the tubing, adhesions to the tubing, tubing failure, and erosion of the band. Three of those bands were replaced with a non-adjustable Silastic (Minimizer) ring. In total, issues with tubing requiring an intervention were found in 20 patients after conversion to ABRYGB. Seven revisional procedures had to be performed for symptomatic internal hernias not related to the tubing and incidental internal hernias were found in another 7 procedures. CONCLUSION: Although conversion of LAGB to ABRYGB is technically feasible, initially well-tolerated, and has good weight loss results, the number of additional procedures during follow-up is rather high, suggesting that leaving the band in place should not be advised.

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges. METHODS: An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: In general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

Is Single-Port Laparoscopy More Precise and Faster with the Robot?

BACKGROUND: Single-port laparoscopy is a step forward toward nearly scar less surgery. Concern has been raised that single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is technically more challenging because of the lack of triangulation and the clashing of instruments. Robotic single-incision laparoscopic surgery (RSILS) in chopstick setting might overcome these problems. This study evaluated the outcome in time and errors of two tasks of the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery on a dry platform, in two settings: SILS versus RSILS. METHODS: Nine experienced laparoscopic surgeons performed two tasks: peg transfer and a suturing task, on a standard box trainer. All participants practiced each task three times in both settings: SILS and a RSILS setting. The assessment scores (time and errors) were recorded. RESULTS: For the first task of peg transfer, RSILS was significantly better in time (124 versus 230 seconds, P = .0004) and errors (0.80 errors versus 2.60 errors, P = .024) at the first run, compared to the SILS setting. At the third and final run, RSILS still proved to be significantly better in errors (0.10 errors versus 0.80 errors, P = .025) compared to the SILS group. RSILS was faster in the third run, but not significant (116 versus 157 seconds, P = .08). For the second task, a suturing task, only 3 participants of the SILS group were able to perform this task within the set time frame of 600 seconds. There was no significant difference in time in the three runs between SILS and RSILS for the 3 participants that fulfilled both tasks within the 600 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that robotic single-port surgery seems easier, faster, and more precise to perform basis tasks of the Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. For the more complex task of suturing, only the single-port robotic setting enabled all participants to fulfill this task, within the set time frame.

[A woman with increasing pain after cholecystectomy]. / Een vrouw met toenemende buikpijn na cholecystectomie.

A 25-year-old female presented with abdominal pain and collapse 3 days after a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The MRCP images suggested a leakage from the stump of the cystic duct. However, an ERCP showed a leakage of a subvesical bile duct arriving from the left hepatic duct. Diagnostic and treatment modalities are discussed.

The voice of Holland: Dutch public and patient's opinion favours single-port laparoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Single-port laparoscopy is prospected as the future of minimal invasive surgery. It is hypothesised to cause less post operative pain, with a shorter hospitalisation period and improved cosmetic results. Population- and patient-based opinion is important for the adaptation of new techniques. This study aimed to assess the opinion and perception of a healthy population and a patient population on single-port laparoscopy compared with conventional laparoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous 33-item questionnaire, describing conventional and single-port laparoscopy, was given to 101 patients and 104 healthy volunteers. The survey participants (median age 44 years; range 17-82 years) were asked questions about their personal situation and their expectations and perceptions of the two different surgical techniques; conventional multi-port laparoscopy and single-port laparoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 72% of the participants had never heard of single-port laparoscopy before. The most important concern in both groups was the risk of surgical complications. When complication risks remain similar, 80% prefers single-port laparoscopy to conventional laparoscopy. When the risk of complications increases from 1% to 10%, 43% of all participants prefer single-port laparoscopy. A total of 70% of the participants are prepared to receive treatment in another hospital if single-port surgery is not performed in their hometown hospital. The preference for single-port approach was higher in the female population. CONCLUSION: Although cure and safety remain the main concerns, the population and patients group have a favourable perception of single-port surgery. The impact of public opinion and patient perception towards innovative techniques is undeniable. If the safety of the two different procedures is similar, this study shows a positive attitude of both participant groups in favour of single-port laparoscopy. However, solid scientific proof for the safety and feasibility of this new surgical technique needs to be obtained before this procedure can be implemented into everyday practice.

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A review on the complications.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to establish the incidence of postoperative complications after single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed using the PubMed database. Search terms included single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, single port cholecystectomy, minimal invasive laparoscopic cholecystectomy, nearly scarless cholecystectomy and complications. RESULTS: A total of 38 articles meeting the selection criteria were reviewed. A total of 1180 patients were selected to undergo single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Introduction of extra ports was necessary in 4% of the patients. Conversion to open cholecystectomy was required in 0.4% of the patients. Laparoscopic cholangiography was attempted in 4% of the patients. The incidence of major complications requiring surgical intervention or ERCP with stenting was 1.7%. The mortality rate was zero. CONCLUSION: Although the number of complications after single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems favourable, it is too early to conclude that single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe procedure. Large randomised controlled trials will be necessary to further establish its safety.

[A dog's groomer with a painful hand]. / Een hondentrimmer met een pijnlijke hand.

A dog's groomer suffered from an abscess on the palmar side of his right hand which was caused by the migration of cut dog hairs into the epidermis, diagnosed as an occupational interdigital sinus pilonidalis. The patient was treated by surgical excision of the abscess.

The use of curved vs. straight instruments in single port access surgery, on standardized box trainer tasks.

BACKGROUND: Single-port access (SPA) surgery is a novel surgical technique to create nearly "scarless" surgery. SPA surgery appears to be safe and feasible, but the exposure and handling of tissue may not be optimal. Therefore, the performance of SPA surgery with different instruments used and conventional laparoscopy is compared. METHODS: Fifteen participants (>50 laparoscopic procedures) performed three basic tasks (translocation, clip & cut, and tissue dissection, based on the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery) in the box trainer in laparoscopy and SPA settings with both (conventional) crossed and curved instruments. All participants completed a questionnaire, which asked their opinion on the use of instruments and preference. RESULTS: Translocation was performed significantly faster in both laparoscopy and SPA crossed than SPA curved (means, 130.3 and 137.7 vs. 170.7 sec; p < 0.001 and p = 0.005). The errors also were less in laparoscopy and SPA crossed (means, 0.9 and 1.2 vs. 1.6), but not significant. The time to complete the dissection was almost equal between laparoscopy and SPA curved settings, but took longer for SPA crossed, although not significantly (148.1 and 150.8 vs. 179.5 sec). The errors only differed significantly between laparoscopy and SPA crossed (means, 0.5 vs. 1.27; p = 0.044). Fourteen participants still favored conventional laparoscopy and one SPA curved. They also thought SPA curved was better than crossed (means, 3.6 vs. 2.47; p = 0.003) and that exposure is superior in curved (means, 3.4 vs. 2.27; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Although conventional laparoscopy may appear most effective for proper dissection and exposure of tissue, single-port access surgery shows potential. Especially in the tissue dissection task, there is no significant difference in time or errors between conventional laparoscopy and SPA surgery, using specially designed curved instruments. Although the participants favor conventional laparoscopy, this could evolve to a more accepting mind when SPA surgery becomes more available and used in the clinical setting.