BACKGROUND: Gastric bypass and adjustable gastric banding currently are the most commonly performed weight loss surgeries. The results are encouraging for most patients, but some patients have a better experience than others. This report aims to define differences between those who succeeded and those that failed to lose significant excessive weight after bariatric surgery. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed their database over the past 4 years. They studied 484 bariatric patients who had 1 year of follow-up evaluation. Success was defined as more than 50% excess weight loss (EWL) and failure as less than 30% EWL. Student's t-tests were performed between the groups of bypass patients, band patients, men, women, whites, and minorities. RESULTS: An overall success rate of 58% and a failure rate of 15% were observed. The successful group was significantly younger. The starting body mass index (BMI) was significantly lower for the successful band patients. The starting excess weight was significantly less in both the successful band and bypass groups, as was the starting weight. The successful whites were significantly younger, and the starting BMI was significantly lower in the successful minority group. The unsuccessful bypass patients and whites were significantly taller than the successful group. Gender was not a significant variable in success or failure regardless of procedure. CONCLUSION: Without consideration for the procedure performed, the patients who successfully lost weight were younger. The unsuccessful band patients had a higher starting BMI, whereas the successful band and bypass patients had lower average starting and excess weights. The successful bypass patients were significantly shorter. Among whites, the successful patients were significantly younger and shorter. The successful minorities had a lower starting BMI. These variables give further insight into the complexity of successful excess weight loss.
BACKGROUND: Gastric bypass and adjustable gastric banding currently are the most commonly performed weight loss surgeries. The results are encouraging for most patients, but some patients have a better experience than others. This report aims to define differences between those who succeeded and those that failed to lose significant excessive weight after bariatric surgery. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed their database over the past 4 years. They studied 484 bariatric patients who had 1 year of follow-up evaluation. Success was defined as more than 50% excess weight loss (EWL) and failure as less than 30% EWL. Student's t-tests were performed between the groups of bypass patients, band patients, men, women, whites, and minorities. RESULTS: An overall success rate of 58% and a failure rate of 15% were observed. The successful group was significantly younger. The starting body mass index (BMI) was significantly lower for the successful band patients. The starting excess weight was significantly less in both the successful band and bypass groups, as was the starting weight. The successful whites were significantly younger, and the starting BMI was significantly lower in the successful minority group. The unsuccessful bypass patients and whites were significantly taller than the successful group. Gender was not a significant variable in success or failure regardless of procedure. CONCLUSION: Without consideration for the procedure performed, the patients who successfully lost weight were younger. The unsuccessful band patients had a higher starting BMI, whereas the successful band and bypass patients had lower average starting and excess weights. The successful bypass patients were significantly shorter. Among whites, the successful patients were significantly younger and shorter. The successful minorities had a lower starting BMI. These variables give further insight into the complexity of successful excess weight loss.
Authors: Laurent Biertho; Rudolf Steffen; Thomas Ricklin; Fritz F Horber; Alfons Pomp; William B Inabnet; Daniel Herron; Michel Gagner Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Pedro J Teixeira; António L Palmeira; Teresa L Branco; Sandra S Martins; Cláudia S Minderico; José T Barata; Analiza M Silva; Luís B Sardinha Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2004-08-02 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Nam Q Nguyen; Philip Game; Justin Bessell; Tamara L Debreceni; Melissa Neo; Carly M Burgstad; Pennie Taylor; Gary A Wittert Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-09-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Carmine Finelli; Maria Carmela Padula; Giuseppe Martelli; Giovanni Tarantino Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Brooke R Fusco; Ryan J Marek; Anthony M Tarescavage; Yossef S Ben-Porath; Leslie J Heinberg Journal: J Clin Psychol Med Settings Date: 2019-09
Authors: Abigail S Baldridge; Jennifer A Pacheco; Sharon A Aufox; Kwang-Youn A Kim; J C Silverstein; W Denham; E Hungness; Maureen E Smith; Norrina B Allen; Philip Greenland; Laura J Rasmussen-Torvik Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Dale S Bond; John M Jakicic; Sivamainthan Vithiananthan; J Graham Thomas; Tricia M Leahey; Harry C Sax; Dieter Pohl; G D Roye; Beth A Ryder; Rena R Wing Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2009-09-10 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Janelle W Coughlin; Angela S Guarda; Jeanne M Clark; Margaret M Furtado; Kimberley E Steele; Leslie J Heinberg Journal: J Clin Psychol Med Settings Date: 2013-12
Authors: K Arapis; P Tammaro; L Ribeiro Parenti; A L Pelletier; D Chosidow; M Kousouri; C Magnan; B Hansel; J P Marmuse Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Athena H Robinson; Sarah Adler; Helen B Stevens; Alison M Darcy; John M Morton; Debra L Safer Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 4.734