Laparoscopic repeat sleeve gastrectomy versus duodenal switch after isolated sleeve gastrectomy for obesity

Abstract

Background: Repeat sleeve gastrectomy (re-SG) and the addition of the duodenal switch (DS) are possible options to increase weight loss after isolated SG (ISG). We report the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of laparoscopic re-SG versus DS in patients presenting with insufficient weight loss or weight regain after ISG.

Methods: From November 2003 to December 2009, 7 and 19 patients underwent laparoscopic re-SG and DS, respectively, mainly because of the patients' dietary habits: volume eating (hyperphagia) was treated by re-SG and eating meals too frequently (polyphagia) by DS.

Results: At ISG, the mean weight and BMI was 127.7 ± 31.4 kg, and 45.1 ± 11.8 kg/m(2) for the re-SG group and 119.8 ± 20.9 kg and 41.2 ± 5.5 kg/m(2) for the DS group, respectively. The mean interval between ISG and reoperation was 37.1 ± 20.3 months for the re-SG group and 29.8 ± 24.9 months for the DS group. At reoperation, the mean weight, BMI, and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) was 109.7 ± 21 kg, 38.9 ± 8.7 kg/m(2), 24.3 ± 16.6% for the re-SG group and 107.6 ± 19.6 kg, 36.9 ± 4.2 kg/m(2), and 19.5 ± 19.9% for the DS group, respectively. The mean operative time was 137.5 ± 75.5 minutes for the re-SG group and 152.6 ± 54.3 minutes for the DS group. No conversion to open surgery was required, and no mortality occurred. One patient in the re-SG group developed a leak at the angle of His. In the DS group, 1 patient presented with bleeding, 1 patient with a duodenoileostomy leak, and 1 patient with a duodenoileostomy stenosis. The mean hospital stay was 11.5 ± 20.5 days for the re-SG group and 4.7 ± 2.7 days for the DS group. The mean follow-up was 23.2 ± 11.1 months for the re-SG group and 24.9 ± 20.1 months for the DS group. The mean weight, BMI, and %EWL was 100 ± 21.1 kg, 35.3 ± 8.3 kg/m(2), 43.7 ± 24.9% for the re-SG group and 80.7 ± 22.5 kg, 27.3 ± 5.2 kg/m(2), 73.7 ± 27.7% for the DS group, respectively. During follow-up, 3 patients in the DS group required corrective surgery for late complications.

Conclusion: The results of the present study have shown that laparoscopic re-SG is feasible but carries the risk of fistula development, which is difficult to treat. Laparoscopic DS was also shown to be feasible at a cost of not negligible complications, which are easier to manage than with re-SG. The efficacy seemed greater after DS than after re-SG.