Repository logo

Browsing by Author "Himpens, J"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Adjustable Gastric Banding Conversion to One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: Data Analysis of a Multicenter Database
    Publication . Pujol-Rafols, J; Uyanik, O; Curbelo-Peña, Y; Abbas, AA; Devriendt, S; Guerra, A; Herrera, MF; Himpens, J; Pardina, E; Pouwels, S; Ramos, A; Ribeiro, RJ; Safadi, B; Sanchez-Aguilar, H; De Vries, CE; Van Wagensveld, B
    Introduction: One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has been proposed as a rescue technique for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) poor responders. Aim: We sought to analyze, complications, mortality, and medium-term weight loss results after LAGB conversion to OAGB. Methods: Data analysis of an international multicenter database. Results: One hundred eighty-nine LAGB-to-OAGB operations were retrospectively analyzed. Eighty-seven (46.0%) were converted in one stage. Patients operated on in two stages had a higher preoperative body mass index (BMI) (37.9 vs. 41.3 kg/m2, p = 0.0007) and were more likely to have encountered technical complications, such as slippage or erosions (36% vs. 78%, p < 0.0001). Postoperative complications occurred in 4.8% of the patients (4.6% and 4.9% in the one-stage and the two-stage group, respectively). Leak rate, bleeding episodes, and mortality were 2.6%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively. The final BMI was 30.2 at a mean follow-up of 31.4 months. Follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years was 100%, 88%, and 70%, respectively. Conclusion: Conversion from LAGB to OAGB is safe and effective. The one-stage approach appears to be the preferred option in non-complicate cases, while the two-step approach is mostly done for more complicated cases.
    2022Journal article Open access Show more
  • Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients
    Publication . Pujol-Rafols, J; Al Abbas, AI; Devriendt, S; Guerra, A; Herrera, MF; Himpens, J; Pardina, E; Pouwels, S; Ramos, A; Ribeiro, RJ; Safadi, B; Sanchez-Aguilar, H; de Vries, C; Van Wagensveld, B
    Background: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is often the preferred conversion procedure for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) poor responders. However, there is controversy whether it is better to convert in one or two stages. This study aims to compare the outcomes of one and two-stage conversions of LAGB to RYGB. Methods: Retrospective review of a multicenter prospectively collected database. Data on conversion in one and two stages was compared. Results: Eight hundred thirty-two patients underwent LAGB conversion to RYGB in seven specialized bariatric centers. Six hundred seventy-three (81%) were converted in one-stage. Patients in the two-stage group were more likely to have experienced technical complications, such as slippage or erosions (86% vs. 37%, p = 0.0001) and to have had a higher body mass index (BMI) (41.6 vs. 39.9 Kg/m2, p = 0.005). There were no differences in postoperative complications and mortality rates between the one-stage and two-stage groups (13.5% vs. 10.8%, and 0.7% vs. 0.0% respectively, p = ns). Mean final BMI and %total weight loss (%TWL) for the one-stage and the two-stage groups were 31.6 vs. 32.4 Kg/m2 (p = ns) and 30.4 vs. 26.8 (p = 0.017) after a mean follow-up of 33 months. Follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years was 98%, 75%, and 54%, respectively. Conclusions: One-stage conversion of LAGB to RYGB is safe and effective. Two-stage conversion carries low morbidity and mortality in the case of band slippage, erosion, or higher BMI patients. These findings suggest the importance of patient selection when choosing the appropriate conversion approach
    2020-12Journal article Open access Show more
  • Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery in Patients with Obesity Class V (BMI > 60 kg/m2): a Modified Delphi Study
    Publication . Ponce de Leon-Ballesteros, G; Pouwels, S; Romero-Velez, G; Aminian, A; Angrisani, L; Bhandari, M; Brown, W; Copaescu, C; De Luca, M; Fobi, M; Ghanem, OM; Hasenberg, T; Herrera, MF; Herrera-Kok, JH; Himpens, J; Kow, L; Kroh, M; Kurian, M; Musella, M; Narwaria, M; Noel, P; Pantoja, JP; Ponce, J; Prager, G; Ramos, A; Ribeiro, R; Ruiz-Ucar, E; Salminen, P; Shikora, S; Small, P; Stier, C; Taha, S; Taskin, EH; Torres, A; Vaz, C; Vilallonga, R; Verboonen, S; Zerrweck, C; Zundel, N; Parmar, C
    Background: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the preferred method to achieve significant weight loss in patients with Obesity Class V (BMI > 60 kg/m2). However, there is no consensus regarding the best procedure(s) for this population. Additionally, these patients will likely have a higher risk of complications and mortality. The aim of this study was to achieve a consensus among a global panel of expert bariatric surgeons using a modified Delphi methodology. Methods: A total of 36 recognized opinion-makers and highly experienced metabolic and bariatric surgeons participated in the present Delphi consensus. 81 statements on preoperative management, selection of the procedure, perioperative management, weight loss parameters, follow-up, and metabolic outcomes were voted on in two rounds. A consensus was considered reached when an agreement of ≥ 70% of experts' votes was achieved. Results: A total of 54 out of 81 statements reached consensus. Remarkably, more than 90% of the experts agreed that patients should be notified of the greater risk of complications, the possibility of modifications to the surgical procedure, and the early start of chemical thromboprophylaxis. Regarding the choice of the procedure, SADI-S, RYGB, and OAGB were the top 3 preferred operations. However, no consensus was reached on the limb length in these operations. Conclusion: This study represents the first attempt to reach consensus on the choice of procedures as well as perioperative management in patients with obesity class V. Although overall consensus was reached in different areas, more research is needed to better serve this high-risk population.
    2024Journal article Open access Show more
  • Patient Selection in One Anastomosis/Mini Gastric Bypass—an Expert Modified Delphi Consensus
    Publication . Kermansaravi, M; Parmar, C; Chiappetta, S; Shahabi, S; Abbass, A; Abbas, SI; Abouzeid, M; Antozzi, L; Asghar, ST; Bashir, A; Bhandari, M; Billy, H; Caina, D; Campos, FJ; Carbajo, MA; Chevallier, JM; Jazi, AH; de Gordejuela, AG; Haddad, A; ElFawal, MH; Himpens, J; Inam, A; Kassir, R; Kasama, K; Khan, A; Kow, L; Kular, KS; Lakdawala, M; Layani, LA; Lee, WJ; Luque-de-León, E; Loi, K; Mahawar, K; Mahdy, T; Musella, M; Nimeri, A; González, JC; Pazouki, A; Poghosyan, T; Prager, G; Prasad, A; Ramos, AC; Rheinwalt, K; Ribeiro, R; Ruiz-Úcar, E; Rutledge, R; Shabbir, A; Shikora, S; Singhal, R; Taha, O; Talebpour, M; Verboonen, JS; Wang, C; Weiner, R; Yang, W; Vilallonga, R; De Luca, M
    Purpose: One anastomosis/mini gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB) is up to date the third most performed obesity and metabolic procedure worldwide, which recently has been endorsed by ASMBS. The main criticisms are the risk of bile reflux, esophageal cancer, and malnutrition. Although IFSO has recognized this procedure, guidance is needed regarding selection criteria. To give clinicians a daily support in performing the right patient selection in OAGB/MGB, the aim of this paper is to generate clinical guidelines based on an expert modified Delphi consensus. Methods: A committee of 57 recognized bariatric surgeons from 24 countries created 69 statements. Modified Delphi consensus voting was performed in two rounds. An agreement/disagreement among ≥ 70.0% of the experts was considered to indicate a consensus. Results: Consensus was achieved for 56 statements. Remarkably, ≥ 90.0% of the experts felt that OAGB/MGB is an acceptable and suitable option "in patients with Body mass index (BMI) > 70, BMI > 60, BMI > 50 kg/m2 as a one-stage procedure," "as the second stage of a two-stage bariatric surgery after Sleeve Gastrectomy for BMI > 50 kg/m2 (instead of BPD/DS)," and "in patients with weight regain after restrictive procedures. No consensus was reached on the statement that OAGB/MGB is a suitable option in case of resistant Helicobacter pylori. This is likely as there is a concern that this procedure is associated with reflux and its related long-term complications including risk of cancer in the esophagus or stomach. Also no consensus reached on OAGB/MGB as conversional surgery in patients with GERD after restrictive procedures. Consensus for disagreement was predominantly achieved "in case of intestinal metaplasia of the stomach" (74.55%), "in patients with severe Gastro Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)(C,D)" (75.44%), "in patients with Barrett's metaplasia" (89.29%), and "in documented insulinoma" (89.47%). Conclusion: Patient selection in OAGB/MGB is still a point of discussion among experts. There was consensus that OAGB/MGB is a suitable option in elderly patients, patients with low BMI (30-35 kg/m2) with associated metabolic problems, and patients with BMIs more than 50 kg/m2 as one-stage procedure. OAGB/MGB can also be a safe procedure in vegetarian and vegan patients. Although OAGB/MGB can be a suitable procedure in patients with large hiatal hernia with concurrent hiatal hernia, it should not be offered to patients with grade C or D esophagitis or Barrett's metaplasia.
    2022Journal article Open access Show more