Skip to main content

A Comparison of One- and Two-Stage Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Following Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding Using the BAROS Score

Obesity Surgery volume 32, pages 1243–1250 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Revision of a failed band can be done by laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). It can be performed synchronously with band removal or during two separate procedures.

Aim

Comparing single- and two-staged LSG following a failed LAGB in terms of short- and mid-term outcomes, with an emphasis on postoperative quality of life.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study comparing revisional LSG’s safety and efficacy after failed LAGB removal. Data included patients’ medical files, as telephone interviews. We compared demographics, weight loss, complications, long-term outcomes, and quality-of-life measures, including the Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System (BAROS).

Results

Ninety-three patients were enrolled, of which 68 (73.1%) underwent a single-stage revisional LSG. Of these, 40 were males (35.1%) with a mean age of 44.9 years (± 12.9). The two-staged group were older. The reasons for band removal differed between the groups: whereas in the two-stage surgery, the common causes were slippage (29.2%) or band intolerance (25%); in the single-stage group, it was weight gain (51%). There were no differences in short- and mid-term complications, weight loss, and quality of life.

Conclusion

In selected cases, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revision of failed gastric banding in one stage is as safe as a two-stage procedure in terms of short- and mid-term complications, weight loss, and quality of life. We believe that there is little benefit in performing elective surgery in two stages unless there are clinical indications. Exceptions for two-stage revision should include cases of band erosion and acute slippage with patient preference for band removal.

Graphical Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Al-Kurd A, Grinbaum R, Abubeih A, Mizrahi I, Kupietzky A, Lourie NEE, et al. Results of conversion of gastric banding to gastric bypass in patients between 50 and 60 years of age are similar to those observed in younger patients. Am J Surg. 2019;217(4):745–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Kurd A, Grinbaum R, Mizrahi I, Abubeih A, Indursky A, Abu HH, et al. A comparison between one- and two-stage revisional gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(5):1459–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bueter M, Thalheimer A, Lager C, Schowalter M, Illert B, Fein M. Who benefits from gastric banding? Obes Surg. 2007;17(12):1608–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carandina S, Tabbara M, Bossi M, Helmy N, Polliand C, Barrat C. Two-stage conversion of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to laparoscopic roux-en-y gastric bypass: a study of one hundred patients. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(10):1730–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dang JT, Switzer NJ, Wu J, Gill RS, Shi X, Thereaux J, et al. Gastric band removal in revisional bariatric surgery, one-step versus two-step: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2016;26(4):866–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. DeMaria EJ, Sugerman HJ, Meador JG, Doty JM, Kellum JM, Wolfe L, et al. High failure rate after laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding for treatment of morbid obesity. Ann Surg. 2001;233(6):809–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gagner M, Gumbs AA. Gastric banding: conversion to sleeve, bypass, or DS. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(11):1931–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Janik M, Ibikunle C, Khan A, Aryaie AH. Safety of single-stage revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy compared to laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass after failed gastric banding. Obes Surg. 2021;31(2):588–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Marchesini JB, Nicareta JR. Comparative study of five different surgical techniques for the treatment of morbid obesity using BAROS. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2014;27(Suppl 1):17–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Marion Y, Eid Y, Menahem B, Lee Bion A, Thobie A, Alves A. What to propose after failed adjustable gastric banding: one-, or two-step procedure? World J Surg. 2020;44(10):3423–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Oria HE, Moorehead MK. Updated Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System (BAROS). Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2009;5(1):60–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Oria HE, Moorehead MK. Bariatric analysis and reporting outcome system (BAROS). Obes Surg. 1998;8(5):487–99.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Oria HE. The BAROS and the Moorehead-Ardelt quality of life questionnaire. Obes Surg. 2003;13(6):965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Obeid NR, Schwack BF, Kurian MS, Ren-Fielding CJ, Fielding GA. Single-stage versus 2-stage sleeve gastrectomy as a conversion after failed adjustable gastric banding: 30-day outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(11):3186–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Park YH, Kim SM. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as revisional surgery for adjustable gastric band erosion. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014;24(9):593–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Perry Z, Romano-Zelekha O, Sakran N, Avital I, Atias S, Netz U, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy following failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a comparison between one- and two-stage procedures – an Israeli National Database Study. Obes Surg. 2021;31(6):2364–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rebibo L, Mensah E, Verhaeghe P, Dhahri A, Cosse C, Diouf M, et al. Simultaneous gastric band removal and sleeve gastrectomy: a comparison with front-line sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg. 2012;22(9):1420–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Silecchia G, Rizzello M, De Angelis F, Raparelli L, Greco F, Perrotta N, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure for failed laparoscopic gastric banding with a “2-step approach”: a multicenter study. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10(4):626–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Skroubis G, Karamanakos S, Sakellaropoulos G, Panagopoulos K, Kalfarentzos F. Comparison of early and late complications after various bariatric procedures: incidence and treatment during 15 years at a single institution. World J Surg. 2011;35(1):93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stroh C, Benedix D, Weiner R, Benedix F, Wolff S, Knoll C, et al. Is a one-step sleeve gastrectomy indicated as a revision procedure after gastric banding? Data analysis from a quality assurance study of the surgical treatment of obesity in Germany. Obes Surg. 2014;24(1):9–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Weiner RA, El-Sayes IA, Theodoridou S, Weiner SR, Scheffel O. Early post-operative complications: Incidence, management, and impact on length of hospital stay – a retrospective comparison between laparoscopic gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg. 2013;23(12):2004–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zadeh J, Le C, Ben-David K. Safety of adjustable gastric band conversion surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the leak rate in 1- and 2-stage procedures. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020;16(3):437–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Zvi H. Perry and Tammy Zioni contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery A, Soroka University Medical Center, P.O Box 151, 64101, Beer Sheva, Israel

    Zvi H. Perry, Uri Netz, Itzhak Avital, Shahar Atias & Boris Kirshtein

  2. Department of Surgery, Assuta Medical Center, Ashdod, Israel

    Tammy Zioni

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer Sheva, Israel

    Alexander Chorny

Authors
  1. Zvi H. Perry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tammy Zioni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Uri Netz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Itzhak Avital
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shahar Atias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexander Chorny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Boris Kirshtein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zvi H. Perry.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Key Points

• Single-stage LSG as a revision after a failed LAGB is feasible and has similar results in terms of morbidity and leak rate to a 2-staged procedure.

• This is seen in areas like short- and mid-term complications, weight loss, and quality of life, as measured by the standardized BAROS questionnaire.

• Patient’s advantages of the one-stage procedure include single admission and single surgery with good weight loss and quality of life.

• We believe that there is no benefit in performing elective surgery in two stages unless there are clinical indications such as band erosion.

Appendix: Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System (BAROS)

Appendix: Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System (BAROS)

BAROSy [11, 13] presents results of bariatric surgery in a simple, objective, and non-biased manner, and consists of five main sections (see Appendix):

  1. a.

    Weight loss—calculated as the percentage of decrease relative to excess weight over ideal weight. Maximum score can be given to an overweight drop of 75—100%.

  2. b.

    Improvement in obesity-related morbidity—hypertension, dyslipidemia, cardiac problems, diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, menstrual disorders, osteoarthritis, and incontinence. Score is given based on decrease in the severity of the problem or its elimination.

  3. c.

    Quality of life (QOL) indices—6 sections: (A) Self-esteem, (B) physical ability, (C) social ability, (D) functioning at work, (E) sexual function, (F) attitude toward food. Each section is scored on a scale from significant aggravation to significant improvement.

  4. d.

    Complications. Early: conversion to laparotomy, infection, suture leakage, bleeding. Late: sleeve stenosis, difficulty eating and drinking (no stenosis). Score drops with level of complication.

  5. e.

    Recurrent surgery—points subtracted for each surgery.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Perry, Z., Zioni, T., Netz, U. et al. A Comparison of One- and Two-Stage Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Following Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding Using the BAROS Score. OBES SURG 32, 1243–1250 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-022-05944-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-022-05944-x

Keywords

  • Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB)
  • Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG)
  • Outcomes
  • Postoperative complications
  • Quality of life