We have located links that may give you full text access.
Revision of primary sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: indications and outcomes from a high-volume center.
Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases 2016 December
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has become an accepted primary bariatric operation. Like other bariatric operations, inadequate weight loss and complications have been reported.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the indications and outcomes of revision of SG to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) at a single community hospital.
SETTING: Community hospital, United States.
METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database identifying SG operations done from February 2009 to June 2014. All patients who underwent revision from SG to RYGB were studied.
RESULTS: Forty-eight patients underwent revision of SG to RYGB. Mean time to revision was 26 months (range, 2-60 mo) and mean follow up after RYGB was 20 months (range, 4-48 mo). Indications for revision were reflux (n = 14), inadequate weight loss (n = 11), reflux and inadequate weight loss (n = 16), stricture (n = 4), chronic leak (n = 1), and recurrent diabetes and reflux (n = 2). Reflux symptoms resolved in 96% of patients after revision, and hiatal hernias were repaired in 50% of patients. Percentage total weight loss at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months was 9.0%, 12.9%, 15.7%, 13.3%, and 6.5%, respectively. The overall rate of complication was 31%. There were no mortalities.
CONCLUSIONS: Revision of SG to RYGB is a potentially effective means of treating SG complications, particularly reflux. Reflux was the most common indication for revision and was often associated with a hiatal hernia. Further studies will be necessary to evaluate the long-term maintenance of additional weight loss after revision of SG to RYGB.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the indications and outcomes of revision of SG to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) at a single community hospital.
SETTING: Community hospital, United States.
METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database identifying SG operations done from February 2009 to June 2014. All patients who underwent revision from SG to RYGB were studied.
RESULTS: Forty-eight patients underwent revision of SG to RYGB. Mean time to revision was 26 months (range, 2-60 mo) and mean follow up after RYGB was 20 months (range, 4-48 mo). Indications for revision were reflux (n = 14), inadequate weight loss (n = 11), reflux and inadequate weight loss (n = 16), stricture (n = 4), chronic leak (n = 1), and recurrent diabetes and reflux (n = 2). Reflux symptoms resolved in 96% of patients after revision, and hiatal hernias were repaired in 50% of patients. Percentage total weight loss at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months was 9.0%, 12.9%, 15.7%, 13.3%, and 6.5%, respectively. The overall rate of complication was 31%. There were no mortalities.
CONCLUSIONS: Revision of SG to RYGB is a potentially effective means of treating SG complications, particularly reflux. Reflux was the most common indication for revision and was often associated with a hiatal hernia. Further studies will be necessary to evaluate the long-term maintenance of additional weight loss after revision of SG to RYGB.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
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