Kamal K Mahawar1, Abdelrahman Nimeri2, Marco Adamo3, Cynthia-Michelle Borg4, Rishi Singhal5, Omar Khan6, Peter K Small7. 1. Bariatric Unit, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland, SR4 7TP, UK. kamal_mahawar@hotmail.com. 2. Sheikh Khalifa Medical City, Abu Dhabi, UAE. 3. University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK. 4. Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, University Hospital Lewisham, London, UK. 5. Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham, UK. 6. St. Georges Hospital, London, UK. 7. Bariatric Unit, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland, SR4 7TP, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is currently little evidence available on various aspects of Revisional Bariatric Surgery (RBS) and no published consensus amongst experts. The purpose of this study was to understand variation in practices concerning RBS. METHODS: Bariatric surgeons from around the world who perform RBS were invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey on SurveyMonkey®. RESULTS: A total of 460 respondents from 62 countries took the survey. For revision after gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (75.5%, n = 345) emerged as the commonest choice followed by sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (56.9%, n = 260) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) (37.2%, n = 170). For revision after SG, RYGB (77.7%, n = 355) was the commonest option followed by OAGB (42.45%, n = 194) and re-sleeve (22.32%, n = 102). For revision after RYGB, surgical pouch reduction (49.1%, n = 223), prolongation of bilio-pancreatic limb (30.0%, n = 136), and surgical stoma size reduction (26.43%, n = 120) were the most preferred options. Approximately 90.0% of respondents (n = 406/454) routinely perform an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy before an RBS, and 85.6% (n = 388/453) routinely perform a contrast study. Ninety percent (n = 403/445) reported that the demand for RBS was usually patient-driven, and there was wide variation in criteria used to define successful response, non-responders, and significant weight regain. CONCLUSIONS: This survey is the first attempt to understand various aspects of RBS. The findings will help in identifying areas for research and allow consensus building amongst experts.
BACKGROUND: There is currently little evidence available on various aspects of Revisional Bariatric Surgery (RBS) and no published consensus amongst experts. The purpose of this study was to understand variation in practices concerning RBS. METHODS: Bariatric surgeons from around the world who perform RBS were invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey on SurveyMonkey®. RESULTS: A total of 460 respondents from 62 countries took the survey. For revision after gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (75.5%, n = 345) emerged as the commonest choice followed by sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (56.9%, n = 260) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) (37.2%, n = 170). For revision after SG, RYGB (77.7%, n = 355) was the commonest option followed by OAGB (42.45%, n = 194) and re-sleeve (22.32%, n = 102). For revision after RYGB, surgical pouch reduction (49.1%, n = 223), prolongation of bilio-pancreatic limb (30.0%, n = 136), and surgical stoma size reduction (26.43%, n = 120) were the most preferred options. Approximately 90.0% of respondents (n = 406/454) routinely perform an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy before an RBS, and 85.6% (n = 388/453) routinely perform a contrast study. Ninety percent (n = 403/445) reported that the demand for RBS was usually patient-driven, and there was wide variation in criteria used to define successful response, non-responders, and significant weight regain. CONCLUSIONS: This survey is the first attempt to understand various aspects of RBS. The findings will help in identifying areas for research and allow consensus building amongst experts.
Authors: Jerry T Dang; Noah J Switzer; Jeremy Wu; Richdeep S Gill; Xinzhe Shi; Jérémie Thereaux; Daniel W Birch; Christopher de Gara; Shahzeer Karmali Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Gladys W Strain; Michel Gagner; Alfons Pomp; Gregory Dakin; William B Inabnet; Jane Hsieh; Laura Heacock; Paul Christos Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2009-04-14 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Piotr K Kowalewski; Robert Olszewski; Maciej S Walędziak; Michał R Janik; Andrzej Kwiatkowski; Natalia Gałązka-Świderek; Krzysztof Cichoń; Jakub Brągoszewski; Krzysztof Paśnik Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Karen D Coulman; Noah Howes; James Hopkins; Katie Whale; Katy Chalmers; Sara Brookes; Alex Nicholson; Jelena Savovic; Yasmin Ferguson; Amanda Owen-Smith; Jane Blazeby; Jane Blazeby; Richard Welbourn; James Byrne; Jenny Donovan; Barnaby C Reeves; Sarah Wordsworth; Robert Andrews; Janice L Thompson; Graziella Mazza; Chris A Rogers Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2016-11 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: André Pereira; André Costa Pinho; Hugo Santos Sousa; Eduardo Lima da Costa; Sara Rodrigues; Elisabete Barbosa; John Preto Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Michał Łabul; Michał Wysocki; Katarzyna Bartosiak; Michał Orłowski; Bartosz Katkowski; Paweł Jaworski; Piotr Małczak; Piotr Major Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2022-10-15 Impact factor: 3.479
Authors: Jan Henrik Beckmann; Anne-Sophie Mehdorn; Jan-Niclas Kersebaum; Witigo von Schönfels; Terbish Taivankhuu; Matthias Laudes; Jan-Hendrik Egberts; Thomas Becker Journal: Visc Med Date: 2020-05-15
Authors: Sara Monfared; Joshua J Weis; Shinil K Shah; Daniel J Scott; Melissa M Felinski; Erik B Wilson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-09-22 Impact factor: 3.453