Background: Failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) can be converted to laparoscopic Roux-and-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), which is currently the gold standard for bariatric surgery. Revisional LRYGB (rLRYGB) is associated with inferior results compared with primary LRYGB (pLRYGB), but the exact influence of the initial response to LAGB is unclear. Objectives: To compare follow-up outcomes after pLRYGB with rLRYGB in nonresponders of LAGB and rLRYGB in responders of LAGB. Setting: General-community teaching hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Methods: All patients who underwent pLRYGB and rLRYGB after LAGB were reviewed in an observational study. Postoperative outcomes, excess weight loss, total weight loss, and success and failure rate were compared in patients after pLRYGB and rLRYGB (both responders and nonresponders of LAGB) at 12, 24, and 36 months. Results: A total of 1285 primary patients, 96 nonresponders, and 120 responders were included. The median follow-up was 33.9±18.0 months. After 36 months, the mean percentage excess weight loss was significantly lower in the nonresponding group compared with the responding and primary groups (48.1% versus 58.2% versus 72.8%, P<.001); the total weight loss showed the same trend. The success rate was 38.2% versus 61.0% versus 81.6% respectively, P<.001. The failure rate was significantly higher after rLRYGB compared with pLRYGB (10.9% nonresponders, 8.5% responders, and 2.5% primary, P = .001). Conclusion: Nonresponders of LAGB show inferior weight loss results after rLRYGB compared with responders of LAGB and pLRYGB at all moments of follow-up.

, , ,,
Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases
Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam

Wijngaarden, L., Jonker, F., van den Berg, J. W., Van Rossem, C. C., van der Harst, E., & Klaassen, R. (2017). Impact of initial response of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding on outcomes of revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases, 13(4), 594–599. doi:10.1016/j.soard.2016.11.023