We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients have an increased lifetime risk of repeat operations when compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy patients.
Surgical Endoscopy 2016 May
BACKGROUND: Although long-term data have been published on the complications after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a relatively new procedure without a well-established long-term procedure-related morbidity profile. Our aim was to compare the 6-year data on re-operations occurring after and related to LRYGB versus LSG at a large academic bariatric center.
METHODS: Retrospective review of all the bariatric procedures at the Massachusetts General Hospital between 2009 and 2014.
RESULTS: A total of 934 LRYGB and 553 LSG were performed. There were no significant differences in the gender, age, or BMI of the patients at the time of their index operations (p > 0.05 for all). A higher percentage of LRYGB patients required cholecystectomy as compared to LSG patients (5 vs. 2 %, X (2) = 8.63, p < 0.01). There was also a significant difference in the proportion of patients requiring re-operations for other reasons following LRYGB as compared to LSG (6.9 vs. 0.9 %, X (2) = 27.8, p < 0.01). A total of 32.8 % of these bypass patients underwent more than one re-operation, with a relative risk of 11.5 (95 % CI 4.69-28.5) as compared to those undergoing SG. A total of 9.3 % of secondary operations occurred at a mean of 1 month after the LRYGB for functional obstruction, with most of these cases related to a technical error. Other re-operations occurred in a delayed fashion, without a clearly identifiable intra-abdominal source in 22.2 %, due to adhesive bowel obstruction in 17.6 %, and internal hernia in 15.7 %. Non-healing ulcers and intussusception were responsible for a small percentage of re-operations (3.7 and 2.8 %).
CONCLUSIONS: SG is associated with a relatively low rate of re-operations, while patients after LRYGB are at a significant long-term risk for multiple operative procedures.
METHODS: Retrospective review of all the bariatric procedures at the Massachusetts General Hospital between 2009 and 2014.
RESULTS: A total of 934 LRYGB and 553 LSG were performed. There were no significant differences in the gender, age, or BMI of the patients at the time of their index operations (p > 0.05 for all). A higher percentage of LRYGB patients required cholecystectomy as compared to LSG patients (5 vs. 2 %, X (2) = 8.63, p < 0.01). There was also a significant difference in the proportion of patients requiring re-operations for other reasons following LRYGB as compared to LSG (6.9 vs. 0.9 %, X (2) = 27.8, p < 0.01). A total of 32.8 % of these bypass patients underwent more than one re-operation, with a relative risk of 11.5 (95 % CI 4.69-28.5) as compared to those undergoing SG. A total of 9.3 % of secondary operations occurred at a mean of 1 month after the LRYGB for functional obstruction, with most of these cases related to a technical error. Other re-operations occurred in a delayed fashion, without a clearly identifiable intra-abdominal source in 22.2 %, due to adhesive bowel obstruction in 17.6 %, and internal hernia in 15.7 %. Non-healing ulcers and intussusception were responsible for a small percentage of re-operations (3.7 and 2.8 %).
CONCLUSIONS: SG is associated with a relatively low rate of re-operations, while patients after LRYGB are at a significant long-term risk for multiple operative procedures.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app