BACKGROUND: This retrospective study compares the results of primary gastric bypass (PGB) versus secondary gastric bypass (SGB) performed after gastroplasty. METHODS: Between January 2004 and August 2008, 576 consecutive patients benefited from laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB) in our hospital. Four hundred seventy patients (81.6%) were available for full evaluation. Primary outcome measures were operative time, conversion to open surgery and mortality, hospital stay, early and late complications, reoperations, efficacy, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-two patients benefited from a PGB and 108 from SGB. Median preoperative BMI was 42 kg/m2 (34.8-63.5; PGB) and 39 kg/m2 (20.9-64.5; SGB; p = 0.002). Median operative time was 109 min (40-436; PGB) and 194 min (80-430; SGB; p < 0.001). There was no conversion to open surgery or mortality in either group. Median hospital stay was 4 days (3-95; PGB) and 5 days (2-114; SGB; p < 0.001). Early complications were recorded in 37 patients (10.2%) after PGB and in 24 patients (22.2%) after SGB (p < 0.001). Reoperation was necessary in 12 patients (3.3%) after PGB and in 9 patients (8.3%) after SGB (p = 0.03). Median follow-up was 35 months (12-66; PGB), and 34 months (12-66; SGB; NS). Late complications were achieved in 46 patients (12.7%) after PGB and in 33 patients (30.6%) after SGB (p < 0.001). Reoperation was necessary in 17 patients (4.7%) after PGB and in 11 patients (10.2%) after SGB (p = 0.03). Mean % EWL was 74.2% after PGB and 69.9% after SGB (NS). After PGB, 89% of the patients was satisfied, 4% neutral, and 6% unsatisfied; after SGB, 79% was satisfied, 10% neutral, and 11% unsatisfied (p = 001). CONCLUSIONS: Weight loss after PGB and SGB is not statistically significantly different. Otherwise, operative time, hospital stay, complications, and revision rate are statistically significantly higher after SGB (p < 0.001).
BACKGROUND: This retrospective study compares the results of primary gastric bypass (PGB) versus secondary gastric bypass (SGB) performed after gastroplasty. METHODS: Between January 2004 and August 2008, 576 consecutive patients benefited from laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB) in our hospital. Four hundred seventy patients (81.6%) were available for full evaluation. Primary outcome measures were operative time, conversion to open surgery and mortality, hospital stay, early and late complications, reoperations, efficacy, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-two patients benefited from a PGB and 108 from SGB. Median preoperative BMI was 42 kg/m2 (34.8-63.5; PGB) and 39 kg/m2 (20.9-64.5; SGB; p = 0.002). Median operative time was 109 min (40-436; PGB) and 194 min (80-430; SGB; p < 0.001). There was no conversion to open surgery or mortality in either group. Median hospital stay was 4 days (3-95; PGB) and 5 days (2-114; SGB; p < 0.001). Early complications were recorded in 37 patients (10.2%) after PGB and in 24 patients (22.2%) after SGB (p < 0.001). Reoperation was necessary in 12 patients (3.3%) after PGB and in 9 patients (8.3%) after SGB (p = 0.03). Median follow-up was 35 months (12-66; PGB), and 34 months (12-66; SGB; NS). Late complications were achieved in 46 patients (12.7%) after PGB and in 33 patients (30.6%) after SGB (p < 0.001). Reoperation was necessary in 17 patients (4.7%) after PGB and in 11 patients (10.2%) after SGB (p = 0.03). Mean % EWL was 74.2% after PGB and 69.9% after SGB (NS). After PGB, 89% of the patients was satisfied, 4% neutral, and 6% unsatisfied; after SGB, 79% was satisfied, 10% neutral, and 11% unsatisfied (p = 001). CONCLUSIONS:Weight loss after PGB and SGB is not statistically significantly different. Otherwise, operative time, hospital stay, complications, and revision rate are statistically significantly higher after SGB (p < 0.001).
Authors: Bruno Dillemans; Nasser Sakran; Sebastiaan Van Cauwenberge; Thibault Sablon; Barbara Defoort; Els Van Dessel; Faki Akin; Nathalie Moreels; Sebastiaan Lambert; Jan Mulier; Ravindra Date; Michel Vandelanotte; Tom Feryn; Luc Proot Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2009-08-15 Impact factor: 3.479
Authors: Peter Vasas; Bruno Dillemans; Sebastiaan Van Cauwenberge; Marieke De Visschere; Charlotte Vercauteren Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.129