Case-matched Analysis Comparing Outcomes of Revisional Versus Primary Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Overview

Journal Surg Endosc

Publisher Springer

Specialties Gastroenterology
General Surgery
Radiology

Date 2012 Jul 19

PMID 22806534

Citations 30

Authors

Alessandro Mor

Elizabeth Keenan

Dana Portenier

Alfonso Torquati

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is one of the most common approaches used to revise post-bariatric patients with inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain. Previous studies have analyzed the outcomes of open revisional RYGB versus primary RYGB, but no case-control matched analysis comparing revisional LRYGB versus primary LRYGB has been performed.

Methods: Our cohort includes 37 consecutive patients who underwent revisional LRYGB because of unsatisfactory weight loss or weight regain matched in a 1:2 ratio with 74 control patients who underwent primary LRYGB. Matching included the following parameters: age, gender, preoperative body mass index and comorbidities (diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, and hypertension).

Results: The revisional group had longer length of stay compared with the primary group (3.8 vs. 2.4 days, P = 0.02) and a higher conversion to laparotomy rate (10.8 vs. 0 %, P = 0.01). The revisional group had a higher 30-day morbidity compared with the primary group (27 vs. 8.1 %, P = 0.02). There were no deaths in both groups. The two groups had similar 30-day readmission and 30 day reoperation rates. At 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up, the revisional LRYGB group had significantly lower percent of excess weight loss (EWL) than the primary LRYGB group (3 months, 30 vs. 38.4, P = 0.001; 6 months, 36.3 vs. 52.9, P = 0.001; 12 months, 46.5 vs. 68.2, P = 0.001).

Conclusions: Revisional LRYGB is characterized by lower EWL and higher morbidity than primary LRYGB. However, our data suggest that revisional LRYGB is still capable of providing significant weight loss in these high-risk patients.

Citing Articles

Safety and factors associated with early discharge in revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: analysis of the MBSAQIP database.

AbuHasan Q, Hunt M, Massoud L, Burney C, Holmstrom A, Yuce T Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(10):6097-6104.

PMID: 39214879 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11205-y.

Robotic bariatric surgery reduces morbidity for revisional gastric bypass when compared to laparoscopic: outcome of 8-year MBSAQIP analysis of over 40,000 cases.

Spurzem G, Broderick R, Kunkel E, Hollandsworth H, Sandler B, Jacobsen G Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(11):6294-6304.

PMID: 39179689 PMC: 11525439. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11192-0.

Duodeno-ileal diversion with self-forming magnets in a sutureless neodymium anastomosis procedure (SNAP) for weight recidivism after sleeve gastrectomy: feasibility and 9-month results.

Turro Arau R, Ortega A, Diez-Caballero A, Saez J, Mata A, Rosinach M Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(9):5199-5206.

PMID: 39043887 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11090-5.

Experience of Robotic Complex Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a High-Volume Center.

Castillo-Larios R, Cornejo J, Gunturu N, Cheng Y, Elli E Obes Surg. 2023; 33(12):4034-4041.

PMID: 37919532 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-023-06916-5.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conversion versus primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a propensity score matching analysis.

OLaughlin M, Cornejo J, Zevallos A, Coker A, Schweitzer M, Adrales G Surg Endosc. 2023; 37(10):7947-7954.

PMID: 37433912 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10261-0.

References

Zingg U, McQuinn A, Divalentino D, Kinsey-Trotman S, Game P, Watson D . Revisional vs. primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass--a case-matched analysis: less weight loss in revisions. Obes Surg. 2010; 20(12):1627-32. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-010-0214-z. View

Khaitan L, Van Sickle K, Gonzalez R, Lin E, Ramshaw B, Smith C . Laparoscopic revision of bariatric procedures: is it feasible?. Am Surg. 2005; 71(1):6-10. View

Ikramuddin S, Kellogg T, Leslie D . Laparoscopic conversion of vertical banded gastroplasty to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2007; 21(11):1927-30. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-007-9537-9. View

van Gemert W, van Wersch M, Greve J, Soeters P . Revisional surgery after failed vertical banded gastroplasty: restoration of vertical banded gastroplasty or conversion to gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 1998; 8(1):21-8. DOI: 10.1381/096089298765555006. View

Iannelli A, Amato D, Addeo P, Buratti M, Damhan M, Amor I . Laparoscopic conversion of vertical banded gastroplasty (Mason MacLean) into Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2007; 18(1):43-6. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-007-9255-3. View

Balsiger B, Poggio J, Mai J, Kelly K, Sarr M . Ten and more years after vertical banded gastroplasty as primary operation for morbid obesity. J Gastrointest Surg. 2001; 4(6):598-605. DOI: 10.1016/s1091-255x(00)80108-0. View

Gonzalez R, Gallagher S, Haines K, Murr M . Operative technique for converting a failed vertical banded gastroplasty to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. J Am Coll Surg. 2005; 201(3):366-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.04.022. View

Hallowell P, Stellato T, Yao D, Robinson A, Schuster M, Graf K . Should bariatric revisional surgery be avoided secondary to increased morbidity and mortality?. Am J Surg. 2009; 197(3):391-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.11.011. View

Finkelstein E, Trogdon J, Cohen J, Dietz W . Annual medical spending attributable to obesity: payer-and service-specific estimates. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009; 28(5):w822-31. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.5.w822. View

10.

Topart P, Becouarn G, Ritz P . One-year weight loss after primary or revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for failed adjustable gastric banding. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2008; 5(4):459-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2008.08.008. View

11.

Te Riele W, Sze Y, Wiezer M, van Ramshorst B . Conversion of failed laparoscopic gastric banding to gastric bypass as safe and effective as primary gastric bypass in morbidly obese patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2008; 4(6):735-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2008.03.001. View

12.

Roller J, Provost D . Revision of failed gastric restrictive operations to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: impact of multiple prior bariatric operations on outcome. Obes Surg. 2006; 16(7):865-9. DOI: 10.1381/096089206777822412. View

13.

Weber M, Muller M, Michel J, Belal R, Horber F, Hauser R . Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, but not rebanding, should be proposed as rescue procedure for patients with failed laparoscopic gastric banding. Ann Surg. 2003; 238(6):827-33. PMC: 1356164. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000098623.53293.bb. View

14.

Livingston E . Obesity and its surgical management. Am J Surg. 2002; 184(2):103-13. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9610(02)00914-5. View

15.

Colquitt J, Picot J, Loveman E, Clegg A . Surgery for obesity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; (2):CD003641. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003641.pub3. View

16.

Deylgat B, DHondt M, Pottel H, Vansteenkiste F, Van Rooy F, Devriendt D . Indications, safety, and feasibility of conversion of failed bariatric surgery to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a retrospective comparative study with primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2012; 26(7):1997-2002. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-2140-0. View

17.

DeMaria E, Sugerman H, Meador J, DOTY J, KELLUM J, Wolfe L . High failure rate after laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding for treatment of morbid obesity. Ann Surg. 2001; 233(6):809-18. PMC: 1421324. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-200106000-00011. View

18.

Westling A, Ohrvall M, Gustavsson S . Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after previous unsuccessful gastric restrictive surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2002; 6(2):206-11. DOI: 10.1016/s1091-255x(01)00035-x. View

19.

Nesset E, Kendrick M, Houghton S, Mai J, Thompson G, Que F . A two-decade spectrum of revisional bariatric surgery at a tertiary referral center. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007; 3(1):25-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2006.10.010. View

20.

Chevallier J, Zinzindohoue F, Douard R, Blanche J, Berta J, Altman J . Complications after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding for morbid obesity: experience with 1,000 patients over 7 years. Obes Surg. 2004; 14(3):407-14. DOI: 10.1381/096089204322917954. View