BACKGROUND: Weight regain has led to an increase in revision of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgeries. There is no standardized approach to revisional surgery after failed RYGB. We performed an exhaustive literature search to elucidate surgical revision options. Our objective was to evaluate outcomes and complications of various methods of revision after RYGB to identify the option with the best outcomes for failed primary RYGB. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted using the following search tools and databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database, Cochrane Review Database, EMBASE, and Allied and Complementary Medicine to identify all relevant studies describing revision after failed RYGB. Inclusion criteria comprised of revisional surgery for weight gain after RYGB. RESULTS: Of the 1200 articles found, only 799 were selected for our study. Of the 799, 24 studies, with a total of 866 patients, were included for a systematic review. Of the 24 studies, 5 were conversion to Distal Roux-en-y gastric bypass (DRYGB), 5 were revision of gastric pouch and anastomosis, 6 were revision with gastric band, 2 were revision to biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS), and 6 were revision to endoluminal procedures (i.e., stomaphyx). Mean percent excess body mass index loss (%EBMIL) after revision up to 1 and 3-year follow-up for BPD/DS was 63.7 and 76 %, DRYGB was 54 and 52.2 %, gastric banding revision 47.6 and 47.3 %, gastric pouch/anastomosis revision 43.3 and 14 %, and endoluminal procedures at 32.1 %, respectively. Gastric pouch/anastomosis revision resulted in the lowest major complication rate at 3.5 % and DRYGB with the highest at 11.9 % when compared to the other revisional procedures. The mortality rate was 0.6 % which only occurred in the DRYGB group. CONCLUSION: All 866 patients in the 24 studies reported significant early initial weight loss after revision for failed RYGB. However, of the five surgical revision options considered, BPD/DS, DRYGB, and gastric banding resulted in sustained weight loss, with acceptable complication rate.
BACKGROUND: Weight regain has led to an increase in revision of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgeries. There is no standardized approach to revisional surgery after failed RYGB. We performed an exhaustive literature search to elucidate surgical revision options. Our objective was to evaluate outcomes and complications of various methods of revision after RYGB to identify the option with the best outcomes for failed primary RYGB. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted using the following search tools and databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database, Cochrane Review Database, EMBASE, and Allied and Complementary Medicine to identify all relevant studies describing revision after failed RYGB. Inclusion criteria comprised of revisional surgery for weight gain after RYGB. RESULTS: Of the 1200 articles found, only 799 were selected for our study. Of the 799, 24 studies, with a total of 866 patients, were included for a systematic review. Of the 24 studies, 5 were conversion to Distal Roux-en-y gastric bypass (DRYGB), 5 were revision of gastric pouch and anastomosis, 6 were revision with gastric band, 2 were revision to biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS), and 6 were revision to endoluminal procedures (i.e., stomaphyx). Mean percent excess body mass index loss (%EBMIL) after revision up to 1 and 3-year follow-up for BPD/DS was 63.7 and 76 %, DRYGB was 54 and 52.2 %, gastric banding revision 47.6 and 47.3 %, gastric pouch/anastomosis revision 43.3 and 14 %, and endoluminal procedures at 32.1 %, respectively. Gastric pouch/anastomosis revision resulted in the lowest major complication rate at 3.5 % and DRYGB with the highest at 11.9 % when compared to the other revisional procedures. The mortality rate was 0.6 % which only occurred in the DRYGB group. CONCLUSION: All 866 patients in the 24 studies reported significant early initial weight loss after revision for failed RYGB. However, of the five surgical revision options considered, BPD/DS, DRYGB, and gastric banding resulted in sustained weight loss, with acceptable complication rate.
Authors: Mario P Morales; Andrew A Wheeler; Archana Ramaswamy; J Stephen Scott; Roger A de la Torre Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2010-01-01 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Pichamol Jirapinyo; Zachary Weitzner; Charlotte Barker; Michael S Flicker; David B Lautz; Christopher C Thompson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Santiago Horgan; Garth Jacobsen; G Derek Weiss; John S Oldham; Peter M Denk; Frank Borao; Steven Gorcey; Brad Watkins; John Mobley; Kari Thompson; Adam Spivack; Dave Voellinger; Chris Thompson; Lee Swanstrom; Paresh Shah; Greg Haber; Matthew Brengman; Gregory Schroder Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2010-02-13 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Lea Fayad; Michael Schweitzer; Micheal Raad; Cem Simsek; Roberto Oleas; Margo K Dunlap; Tazkia Shah; Jay Doshi; Margueritta El Asmar; Andreas Oberbach; Vikesh K Singh; Kimberly Steele; Thomas Magnussen; Anthony N Kalloo; Mouen A Khashab; Vivek Kumbhari Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Reuben D Shin; Michael B Goldberg; Allison S Shafran; Samuel A Shikora; Melissa C Majumdar; Scott A Shikora Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Kamal K Mahawar; Jacques M Himpens; Scott A Shikora; Almino C Ramos; Antonio Torres; Shaw Somers; Bruno Dillemans; Luigi Angrisani; Jan Willem M Greve; Jean-Marc Chevallier; Pradeep Chowbey; Maurizio De Luca; Rudolf Weiner; Gerhard Prager; Ramon Vilallonga; Marco Adamo; Nasser Sakran; Lilian Kow; Mufazzal Lakdawala; Jerome Dargent; Abdelrahman Nimeri; Peter K Small Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Kamal K Mahawar; Abdelrahman Nimeri; Marco Adamo; Cynthia-Michelle Borg; Rishi Singhal; Omar Khan; Peter K Small Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 4.129