Revisional Gastric Bypass for Failed Restrictive Procedures: Comparison of Single-Anastomosis (Mini-) and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Nov 5, 2017Obesity surgery

Revisional Gastric Bypass After Failed Weight-Loss Surgeries: Comparing Single-Connection and Roux-en-Y Techniques

AI simplified

GLP-1 Therapies on OpenScience ↗PubMed ↗DOI ↗

Abstract

Average weight loss at 1-year follow-up was 76.8% for single-anastomosis gastric bypass (SAGB) compared to 32.9% for revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

Ten to 50% of patients with restrictive bariatric operations may need reoperation due to weight regain or inadequate weight loss.
The average age of patients undergoing revision was 35.7 years, with a body mass index of 37.2 kg/m² prior to reoperation.
The majority of revisions were due to weight regain (50.9%) and inadequate weight loss (31%).
Both revision techniques were performed laparoscopically, with RYGB taking significantly longer than SAGB.
At 5-year follow-up, a significantly lower hemoglobin level was observed in the SAGB group.

AI simplified

BACKGROUND: Ten to 50% of patients who received restrictive bariatric operations may require reoperation for unsatisfactory weight loss or weight regain. Failed restrictive procedures are usually managed with conversion to another bariatric procedure with a favor of conversion to laparoscopic gastric bypass. Our aim is to evaluate two different bypass techniques, laparoscopic RY gastric bypass (RYGB) versus single-anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass (SAGB) as a revision option (R-RYGB and R-SAGB) for failed restrictive bariatric operations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: From May 2001 to December 2015, a total of 116 patients with failed restrictive bariatric operations underwent laparoscopic revisional bypass surgery (81 R-SAGB and 35 R-RYGB). Among them, 81 were failed after vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) and 35 were after adjustable gastric band (AGB). The demographic data, surgical parameters, and outcomes were studied.

RESULTS: The average age at revision surgery was 35.7 years (range 22-56), and the average body mass index (BMI) before reoperation was 37.2 kg/m(29.0-51.8). Revision surgery was performed after 58.8 months from the primary surgery on average (14-180 months). The main reasons for the revisions were weight regain (50.9%), inadequate weight loss (31%), and intolerance (18.1%). All of the procedures were completed laparoscopically as one-stage procedure. R-RYGB had significantly longer operative times than R-SAGB. Major complication occurred in 12 (10%) patients without significant difference between R-SAGB group and R-RYGB group. At 1 year follow-up, weight loss was better in R-SAGB than R-RYGB (76.8 vs. 32.9% EWL; p = 0.001). At 5 year follow-up, a significantly lower hemoglobin level was found in R-SAGB group (p = 0.03). 2

CONCLUSION: Both SAGB and RYGB are acceptable options for revising a restrictive type of bariatric procedures with equal safety profile. R-SAGB was shown to be a simpler procedure with better weight reduction than R-RYGB but anemia is a considerable complication at long-term follow-up.

Full Text

Full text is available at the source.

View full text (HTML) ↗View full text (PDF) ↗

Revisional Gastric Bypass for Failed Restrictive Procedures: Comparison of Single-Anastomosis (Mini-) and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Abstract

Full Text

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the glp-1 therapies brief

Abstract

Full Text

Related papers

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the glp-1 therapies brief