BACKGROUND: Despite the health benefits of bariatric surgery (BS) extend beyond WL, better understanding of the WL response may help improve the outcomes of BS. In this context, we aimed to assess patterns within the variability of weight loss (WL) after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). METHODS: WL data from 658 subjects that underwent RYGB (n = 464) or SG (n = 194) as first BS were analyzed. Based on excess WL (EWL), subjects were categorized as good WL responders (EWL ≥ 50 % at nadir weight and throughout follow-up), primarily poor WL responders (1-PWL:EWL < 50 % at nadir weight and thereafter), and secondarily poor WL responders (2-PWL:EWL ≥ 50 % at nadir weight, but <50 % at last follow-up visit). Predictors associated with different WL outcomes were ascertained using regression analysis. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 55.7 months. Nadir EWL ranged 12.4-143.6 %; last follow-up visit EWL ranged -22.1-143.6 % and weight regain (WR) ranged 0-64.1 kg. Good WL was found in 75.7 of the cohort. 1-PWL response (4.7 %) was characterized by lesser WL but similar WR as compared to good WL and was associated with larger BMI and diabetes prior to surgery. 2-PWL response (19.6 %) was characterized by larger WR as compared to the other groups and was more common following SG. Lesser percentage of medical appointments kept was associated with 1-PWL and 2-PWL. CONCLUSION: Our data show the high inter-individual variability of the WL response at mid-term after RYGB and SG and that poor WL after BS could be illustrated by two different patterns, characterized either by sustained limited WL (1-PWL), or pronounced weight regain (2-PWL).
BACKGROUND: Despite the health benefits of bariatric surgery (BS) extend beyond WL, better understanding of the WL response may help improve the outcomes of BS. In this context, we aimed to assess patterns within the variability of weight loss (WL) after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). METHODS: WL data from 658 subjects that underwent RYGB (n = 464) or SG (n = 194) as first BS were analyzed. Based on excess WL (EWL), subjects were categorized as good WL responders (EWL ≥ 50 % at nadir weight and throughout follow-up), primarily poor WL responders (1-PWL:EWL < 50 % at nadir weight and thereafter), and secondarily poor WL responders (2-PWL:EWL ≥ 50 % at nadir weight, but <50 % at last follow-up visit). Predictors associated with different WL outcomes were ascertained using regression analysis. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 55.7 months. Nadir EWL ranged 12.4-143.6 %; last follow-up visit EWL ranged -22.1-143.6 % and weight regain (WR) ranged 0-64.1 kg. Good WL was found in 75.7 of the cohort. 1-PWL response (4.7 %) was characterized by lesser WL but similar WR as compared to good WL and was associated with larger BMI and diabetes prior to surgery. 2-PWL response (19.6 %) was characterized by larger WR as compared to the other groups and was more common following SG. Lesser percentage of medical appointments kept was associated with 1-PWL and 2-PWL. CONCLUSION: Our data show the high inter-individual variability of the WL response at mid-term after RYGB and SG and that poor WL after BS could be illustrated by two different patterns, characterized either by sustained limited WL (1-PWL), or pronounced weight regain (2-PWL).
Authors: J Vidal; A Ibarzabal; J Nicolau; M Vidov; S Delgado; G Martinez; J Balust; R Morinigo; A Lacy Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: M A Sarzynski; P Jacobson; T Rankinen; B Carlsson; L Sjöström; C Bouchard; L M S Carlsson Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Philip R Schauer; Deepak L Bhatt; John P Kirwan; Kathy Wolski; Stacy A Brethauer; Sankar D Navaneethan; Ali Aminian; Claire E Pothier; Esther S H Kim; Steven E Nissen; Sangeeta R Kashyap Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ted D Adams; Lance E Davidson; Sheldon E Litwin; Ronette L Kolotkin; Michael J LaMonte; Robert C Pendleton; Michael B Strong; Russell Vinik; Nathan A Wanner; Paul N Hopkins; Richard E Gress; James M Walker; Tom V Cloward; R Tom Nuttall; Ahmad Hammoud; Jessica L J Greenwood; Ross D Crosby; Rodrick McKinlay; Steven C Simper; Sherman C Smith; Steven C Hunt Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David Edholm; Felicity Svensson; Ingmar Näslund; F Anders Karlsson; Eva Rask; Magnus Sundbom Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Ida J Hatoum; Danielle M Greenawalt; Chris Cotsapas; Mark J Daly; Marc L Reitman; Lee M Kaplan Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Karl J Neff; Ling Ling Chuah; Erlend T Aasheim; Sabrina Jackson; Sukhpreet S Dubb; Shiva T Radhakrishnan; Arvinder S Sood; Torsten Olbers; Ian F Godsland; Alexander D Miras; Carel W le Roux Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Tarissa Beatrice Zanata Petry; Pedro Paulo Caravatto; Fernando Quirino Pechy; Jose Luis Lopes Correia; Catia Cristina Lorenzi Guerbali; Regina Marcelina da Silva; João Eduardo Salles; Ricardo Cohen Journal: Curr Atheroscler Rep Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 5.113
Authors: Daniëlle S Bonouvrie; Martine Uittenbogaart; Arijan A P M Luijten; François M H van Dielen; Wouter K G Leclercq Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 4.129