Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Outcomes of Reoperation After Laparoscopic Gastric Plication Failure Publisher Pubmed



Heidari R1, 2, 3 ; Talebpour M1, 3 ; Soleymanjahi S1, 2 ; Zeinoddini A1, 2, 3 ; Sanjari Moghaddam A4 ; Talebpour A1, 3
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. School of Medicicne, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  2. 2. Universal Scientific, Educational, and Research Network (USERN), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  3. 3. Ward of Laparoscopy, Department of Surgery, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  4. 4. School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Source: Obesity Surgery Published:2019


Abstract

Background: Management of failed laparoscopic gastric plication (LGP), defined as weight regain or inadequate weight loss, is a challenging issue. Methods: This prospective investigation was conducted in individuals with morbid obesity who had undergone LGP from 2000 to 2016. Patients with weight loss failure, weight regain, and regain-prone cases were indicated for reoperation. Re-plication, laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (LOAGB), and modified jejunoileal bypass were done as revisional surgery. Results: Revisional surgery was performed in 102 of 124 patients who needed reoperation. Overall, 39 re-plication, 38 LOAGB, and 25 malabsorptive procedures were performed. Re-plication was the shortest surgery and had the shortest length of hospital stay. The percentage of TWL at 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up was 20.5%, 25%, and 26.8% for re-plication; 20.2%, 27%, and 30.5% for LOAGB; and 22.9%, 28.9%, and 32.6% for the malabsorptive procedure, respectively. In addition, the percentage of EWL at 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up was 62%, 74.6%, and 79.6% for re-plication; 51.6%, 68.2%, and 75.9% for LOAGB; and 55.4%, 70.1%, and 79.1% for malabsorptive procedure, respectively. In long-term follow-up, according to %TWL, LOAGB and malabsorptive procedure had better outcome compared to re-plication, whereas there was no statistically significant difference in %EWL among the three surgical approaches. Conclusions: In terms of weight loss, reoperation on failed LGP was completely successful and no treatment failure was reported. All three revisional procedures, including re-plication, LOAGB, and malabsorptive procedure showed promising results and provided substantial weight loss. Since there is little information about the long-term efficacy and safety of revisional surgery on failed LGP, we highly recommend further investigations to confirm our results. © 2018, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.