Yulia Zak1, Emil Petrusa2, Denise W Gee3. 1. Massachusetts General Hospital, 15 Parkman Street, WAC 460, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. yulia.zak@gmail.com. 2. MGH Learning Lab, Massachusetts General Hospital, 3 Hawthorne Place, Suite 105, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 3. Massachusetts General Hospital, 15 Parkman Street, WAC 460, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. dgee@partners.org.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Todd E Simon; Joshua A Scott; Joel R Brockmeyer; Robert C Rice; James D Frizzi; Farah A Husain; Yong U Choi Journal: Am Surg Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Lars Sjöström; Anna-Karin Lindroos; Markku Peltonen; Jarl Torgerson; Claude Bouchard; Björn Carlsson; Sven Dahlgren; Bo Larsson; Kristina Narbro; Carl David Sjöström; Marianne Sullivan; Hans Wedel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew M Hutter; Bruce D Schirmer; Daniel B Jones; Clifford Y Ko; Mark E Cohen; Ryan P Merkow; Ninh T Nguyen Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Marie Ashley Villard; Melissa C Helm; Tammy L Kindel; Matthew I Goldblatt; Jon C Gould; Rana M Higgins Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Adam C Celio; Qiang Wu; Kevin R Kasten; Mark L Manwaring; Walter J Pories; Konstantinos Spaniolas Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 4.584