Introduction: Laparoscopic BariClip Gastroplasty (LBCG) represents a new bariatric procedure that mimics the principle of the Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG), but using a completely reversible mechanism, which is essential for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The purpose of our study was to evaluate the evolution of GERD following the initial experience with LBCG. Methods: The first 43 obese patients who underwent LBCG performed by the same surgeon in two different medical centers in May 2018–December 2019 were included in the current study. Twelve patients had issues of reflux, regularly receiving PPIs (proton pump inhibitors) treatment in eight cases, and occasionally in four cases. Thirty-two patients completed the follow-up at one year and the GERD was evaluated using the PPI medications and the GerdQ. Results: The median preoperative GerdQ score was (14.58 ± 1.9). Three patients out of the twelve who had complained about preoperative GERD did not consent to the one year follow-up form. For the rest of nine patients, the median post-operative GerdQ score was (10.11 ± 3.2). The PPIs were used at one year follow-up in six patients: four with occasional use, one patient with regular use showing no improvement, and one who experienced de novo GERD symptomatology (3.1%). No statistically significant difference between the groups was recorded in terms of GERD. We recorded no intraoperative complications. No case of erosion occurred in the post-operative period, but we encountered two cases of slippage. One additional BariClip was removed at 14 months. Conclusion: LBCG represents a new bariatric procedure that mimics the principle of the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, but with a completely reversible mechanism. Even with limited cases, our experience reports several mechanisms of action that will be evaluated and discussed in further prospective clinical trials. After this preliminary clinical study, LBCG’s effects on GERD and its safety are highly encouraging.

Background: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) procedures have declined worldwide in recent years. A known complication is the intraluminal erosion of the prosthetic material. The endoscopic management of gastric band erosion represents the recommended approach nowadays, and it avoids any additional trauma to the gastric wall already damaged by the migration. The purpose of our study was to assess the feasibility of endoscopic management for intraluminal gastric band erosion following LAGB. Methods: From January 2009–December 2020, a total of 29 patients were retrospectively reviewed after undergoing endoscopic gastric band removal. The study included all consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic gastric band removal in this period. No patients were excluded from the study. Data on patient demographic characteristics, case history, operative details (procedural time, adverse events), and complications were reviewed retrospectively. Results: Twenty-nine patients underwent endoscopic gastric band removal: 22 women (75.8%) with a mean age of 45 years (range: 28–63) and mean Body Mass Index (BMI) of 31 ± 4.7 kg/m² (range: 24–41). The average time to the identification of erosion after LAGB was 42 months (range: 28–137). The initial upper endoscopy found a migrated band of more than half of the diameter in 21 cases, less than a half but more than a third in seven cases and in one case, less than a third (use of a stent). Twenty-seven patients were successfully treated with endoscopic removal, and in two cases, the endoscopic approach failed, and laparoscopy was further performed. Conclusions: The endoscopic management of intraluminal erosion after LAGB can be safe and effective and should be considered the procedure of choice when treating this complication. The percentage of the band migration is important for the timing of the endoscopic removal.

Introduction: Despite the unanimous acknowledgement of the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) worldwide, the leak remains its deficiency. For the last decade, the surgical treatment was practically considered mandatory for almost any collection following LSG. The aim of this study is to evaluate the need for surgical drainage for leak following LSG. Methods: All consecutive patients having gone through LSG from January 2017 to December 2020 were enrolled in our study. Once the demographic data and the leak history were registered, we analyzed the outcome of the surgical or endoscopic drainage, the characteristics of the endoscopic treatment, and the evolution to complete healing. Results: A total of 1249 patients underwent LSG and the leak occurred in 11 cases (0.9%). There were 10 women with a mean age of 47.8 years (27–63). The surgical drainage was performed for three patients and the rest of the eight patients underwent primary endoscopic treatment. The endoscopic treatment was represented with pigtails for seven cases and septotomy with balloon dilation for four cases. In two out of these four cases, the septotomy was anticipated by the use of a nasocavitary drain for 2 weeks. The average number of endoscopic procedures was 3.2 (range 2–6). The leaks achieved complete healing after an average duration of 4.8 months (range 1–9 months). No mortality was recorded for a leak. Conclusions: The treatment of the gastric leak must be tailored to each patient. Although there is still no consensus for the endoscopic drainage of leaks after LSG, the surgical approach can be avoided in up to 72%. The benefits of pigtails and nasocavitary drains followed by endoscopic septotomy are undeniable, and they should be included in the armamentarium of any bariatric center.