Benedict Mackay1, Lifeng Zhou2, David Schroeder3. 1. Department of General Surgery, North Shore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 2. Epidemiology, North Shore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 3. Bariatric Surgery, Surgical Obesity Services, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The perceived benefits of Roux-en-Y laparoscopic gastric bypass (LRYGB) surgery in the ≥60s are regarded as being significantly less than in the younger population. This study examined a New Zealand population who underwent LRYGB and analysed the mortality rate, complications and postoperative weight loss. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent LRYGB over a 12-year period and had attended up to 1 year of follow-up clinic. The study population was from a single centre in New Zealand. RESULTS: A total of 1362 patients were eligible. Demographic analysis showed the <60 to have 83% female majority, mean age of 43 years and a mean body mass index of 46. The ≥60 group had a 76% female majority, mean age of 63 years and a mean body mass index of 45. The % excess weight loss, % weight loss and weight loss at 1 year all showed a significant difference. Analysis of the % excess weight loss at 1 year in the ≥60s showed a mean of 79% and a median of 78% (95% confidence interval: 69%, 85%). In the <60s the mean was 84% and the median 84% (95% confidence interval: 83%, 85%). Comparison between the groups showed a significant difference (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.0064). The complication frequency of the groups was not significantly different (chi-square test, P = 0.7605). CONCLUSION: LRYGB is an effective weight loss operation in the <60s and ≥60s. LRYGB is safe, with a low complication rate and 30-day postoperative mortality rate. LRYGB should not be restricted on the basis of age alone.
BACKGROUND: The perceived benefits of Roux-en-Y laparoscopic gastric bypass (LRYGB) surgery in the ≥60s are regarded as being significantly less than in the younger population. This study examined a New Zealand population who underwent LRYGB and analysed the mortality rate, complications and postoperative weight loss. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent LRYGB over a 12-year period and had attended up to 1 year of follow-up clinic. The study population was from a single centre in New Zealand. RESULTS: A total of 1362 patients were eligible. Demographic analysis showed the <60 to have 83% female majority, mean age of 43 years and a mean body mass index of 46. The ≥60 group had a 76% female majority, mean age of 63 years and a mean body mass index of 45. The % excess weight loss, % weight loss and weight loss at 1 year all showed a significant difference. Analysis of the % excess weight loss at 1 year in the ≥60s showed a mean of 79% and a median of 78% (95% confidence interval: 69%, 85%). In the <60s the mean was 84% and the median 84% (95% confidence interval: 83%, 85%). Comparison between the groups showed a significant difference (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.0064). The complication frequency of the groups was not significantly different (chi-square test, P = 0.7605). CONCLUSION: LRYGB is an effective weight loss operation in the <60s and ≥60s. LRYGB is safe, with a low complication rate and 30-day postoperative mortality rate. LRYGB should not be restricted on the basis of age alone.