Chanan Meydan1,2, Asnat Raziel1, Nasser Sakran1,3, Varda Gottfried1, David Goitein4,5. 1. Assia Medical Group, Assuta Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. 2. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Department of Surgery A, Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel, affiliated with Rappaport, Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. 4. Assia Medical Group, Assuta Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. david.goitein@sheba.health.gov.il. 5. Department of Surgery C, Tel Hashomer Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel, affiliated with, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. david.goitein@sheba.health.gov.il.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single anastomosis gastric bypass (SAGB) has been established as a safe and effective bariatric procedure. SAGB has also been suggested as a conversion option from other procedures, but so far not extensively explored in that direction. METHODS: The study retrospectively reviewed and analyzed 154 consecutive SAGB procedures, including 48 conversional SAGB (cSAGB) and 106 primary SAGB (pSAGB). Preoperative physical dimensions and perioperative complications were obtained. Patients were followed 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively, with weight measurements compared between groups. RESULTS: Operative times were longer in the cSAGB group but length of hospital stay was the same for both groups. Sixty-five percent of the cSAGB group had adjustable banding as a primary operation, and 94 % opted for conversion due to insufficient weight loss or regain thereof. Follow-up data availability was 98, 82, and 79 % for the three checkpoints. Three and 6 months postoperatively, cSAGB had inferior mean excess weight loss (EWL) compared to pSAGB, though both groups were successful after 6 months (mean EWL >50 %). Body mass index loss was significantly higher for pSAGB for the first postoperative 3 months. Low complication rates in both groups precluded statistical comparison in that respect. DISCUSSION: Initial weight loss after conversional SAGB is inferior to primary SAGB after 6 months. The observed safety of cSAGB is comparable to previous evidence for this procedure in the conversional settings. CONCLUSION: SAGB may be considered as a safe and effective conversional procedure, but not as effective as pSAGB for initial weight loss.
BACKGROUND: Single anastomosis gastric bypass (SAGB) has been established as a safe and effective bariatric procedure. SAGB has also been suggested as a conversion option from other procedures, but so far not extensively explored in that direction. METHODS: The study retrospectively reviewed and analyzed 154 consecutive SAGB procedures, including 48 conversional SAGB (cSAGB) and 106 primary SAGB (pSAGB). Preoperative physical dimensions and perioperative complications were obtained. Patients were followed 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively, with weight measurements compared between groups. RESULTS: Operative times were longer in the cSAGB group but length of hospital stay was the same for both groups. Sixty-five percent of the cSAGB group had adjustable banding as a primary operation, and 94 % opted for conversion due to insufficient weight loss or regain thereof. Follow-up data availability was 98, 82, and 79 % for the three checkpoints. Three and 6 months postoperatively, cSAGB had inferior mean excess weight loss (EWL) compared to pSAGB, though both groups were successful after 6 months (mean EWL >50 %). Body mass index loss was significantly higher for pSAGB for the first postoperative 3 months. Low complication rates in both groups precluded statistical comparison in that respect. DISCUSSION: Initial weight loss after conversional SAGB is inferior to primary SAGB after 6 months. The observed safety of cSAGB is comparable to previous evidence for this procedure in the conversional settings. CONCLUSION:SAGB may be considered as a safe and effective conversional procedure, but not as effective as pSAGB for initial weight loss.
Entities:
Keywords:
Conversion; Obesity; Secondary procedure; Single anastomosis gastric bypass
Authors: Urs Zingg; Alexander McQuinn; Dennis DiValentino; Steven Kinsey-Trotman; Philip Game; David Watson Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Elizabeth M Nesset; Michael L Kendrick; Scott G Houghton; Jane L Mai; Geoffrey B Thompson; Florencia G Que; Kristine M Thomsen; Dirk R Larson; Michael G Sarr Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Simon Kuesters; Jodok M Grueneberger; Tobias Baumann; Waleed Bukhari; Marc Daoud; Ulrich T Hopt; Wojciech K Karcz Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Sean Manning; Nicholas C Carter; Andrea Pucci; Alexander Jones; Mohamed Elkalaawy; Wui-Hang Cheung; Borzoueh Mohammadi; Nicholas Finer; Alberic G Fiennes; Majid Hashemi; Andrew D Jenkinson; Marco Adamo; Rachel L Batterham Journal: BMC Obes Date: 2014-08-11
Authors: Maurizio De Luca; Tiffany Tie; Geraldine Ooi; Kelvin Higa; Jacques Himpens; Miguel-A Carbajo; Kamal Mahawar; Scott Shikora; Wendy A Brown Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 4.129