One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass versus Roux en Y Gastric Bypass as Salvage Technique after Failed Gastric Band: a Retrospective Analysis of 80 Cases

The classical “Roux en Y Gastric Bypass” (RYGBP) is still the standard technique between all the ones being used nowadays. The “One anastomosis gastric bypass” (OAGBP), is an evolution of the “Minigastic bypass” described by Robert Rutledge in 2001, is a well known and progressively frequent but still controversial technique. In our group, after an experience of 10 years using the RYGBP as a salvage surgery after failed gastric banding, in 132 cases, we decided to adopt the OAGBP as our preferential bariatric technique also in this situation. The theoretical main reasons for that shift are related to the increased safety, maximized weight loss, long term weight loss maintenance and reversibility of the operation. Method: Retrospectively we evaluated data of the surgical management of revisional cases for conversion, after failed or complicated gastric bands to gastric bypass. We selected the last 40 cases of each technique since May 2010. Results: All cases were performed by laparoscopy without any conversion. In both groups the conversion has been performed in one single step (17 cases, 42,5%). Data showed lower morbidity with OAGBP (2,5% against 7,5%) and better weight loss in theOAGBP cohort after a median follow up of 16months (67%against 55%) in patients revised after gastric band failure or complications. None had statistic significance (p>0,1) by the chi-square contingency table analysis.Conclusion: It seems to there is a difference in favour of OAGBP for conversion of complicated gastric bands. In this study we didn’t found statistic significance probably because of the short numbers. Prospective and more powerful studies are necessary to evaluate the benefit of the studied procedure.

Impact of RIFLE Classification in Liver Transplantation

Acute renal failure (ARF) is common after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of RIFLE classification in the development of CKD, hemodialysis requirement, and mortality. Patients were categorized as risk (R), injury (I) or failure (F) according to renal function at day 1, 7 and 21. Final renal function was classified according to K/DIGO guidelines. We studied 708 OLT recipients, transplanted between September 1992 and March 2007; mean age 44 +/- 12.6 yr, mean follow-up 3.6 yr (28.8% > or = 5 yr). Renal dysfunction before OLT was known in 21.6%. According to the RIFLE classification, ARF occurred in 33.2%: 16.8% were R class, 8.5% I class and 7.9% F class. CKD developed in 45.6%, with stages 4 or 5d in 11.3%. Mortality for R, I and F classes were, respectively, 10.9%, 13.3% and 39.3%. Severity of ARF correlated with development of CKD: stage 3 was associated with all classes of ARF, stages 4 and 5d only with severe ARF. Hemodialysis requirement (23%) and mortality were only correlated with the most severe form of ARF (F class). In conclusion, RIFLE classification is a useful tool to stratify the severity of early ARF providing a prognostic indicator for the risk of CKD occurrence and death.