Christos Antonopulos1,2, Lionel Rebibo1,3,4, Daniela Calabrese5, Lara Ribeiro-Parenti1, Konstantinos Arapis1, Abdennaceur Dhahri4, Muriel Coupaye6, Boris Hansel7, Jean-Pierre Marmuse1, Jean-Marc Regimbeau3,4, Simon Msika8,9. 1. Department of Digestive, Esogastric and Bariatric Surgery, Bichat Claude Bernard University Hospital, 46 rue Henri Huchard, F-75018, Paris, France. 2. Department of Medical and Oral Sciences and Biotechnologies, "G.d'Annunzio" University, Via dei Vestini 31, 66100, Chieti, Italy. 3. SSPC (Simplification des Soins des Patients Complexes) - Clinical Research Unit, University of Picardie Jules Verne, 80054, Amiens Cedex 01, France. 4. Department of Digestive Surgery, Amiens University Medical Center, Avenue René Laennec, F-80054, Amiens Cedex 01, France. 5. Department of Digestive and General Surgery, Louis Mourier University Hospital, 178 rue des Renouillers, F-92700, Colombes, France. 6. Explorations Fonctionnelles Department, Louis Mourier Hospital, 178 rue des Renouillers, F-92700, Colombes, France. 7. Department of Diabetes and Nutrition, Bichat Claude Bernard University Hospital, 46 rue Henri Huchard, F-75018, Paris, France. 8. Department of Digestive, Esogastric and Bariatric Surgery, Bichat Claude Bernard University Hospital, 46 rue Henri Huchard, F-75018, Paris, France. simon.msika@aphp.fr. 9. Department of Digestive and General Surgery, Louis Mourier University Hospital, 178 rue des Renouillers, F-92700, Colombes, France. simon.msika@aphp.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few series are available on the results of repeat sleeve gastrectomy (re-SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) performed to manage the failure of primary sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The objective of this study was to compare the short- and medium-term outcomes of re-SG and RYGB after SG. MATERIAL & METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2017, patients undergoing re-SG (n = 61) and RYGB (n = 83) for failure of primary SG were included in this study. Revisional surgery was proposed for patients with insufficient excess weight loss (EWL ≤ 50%) or weight regain. The primary endpoint was the comparison of weight loss in the re-SG group and the RYGB group at the 1-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were overall mortality and morbidity, specific morbidity, length of stay, weight loss, and correction of comorbidities. RESULTS: The mean interval between SG and re-SG was 41.5 vs. 43.2 months between SG and RYGB (p = 0.32). The mean operative time was 103 min (re-SG group) vs. 129.4 min (RYGB group). One death (1.7%; re-SG group) and 25 complications (17.4%; 9 in the re-SG group, 16 in the RYGB group) were observed. At the 1 year, mean body mass index was 31.6 in the re-SG group and 32.5 in the RYGB group (p = 0.61) and excess weight loss was 69.5 vs. 61.2, respectively (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Re-SG and RYGB as revisional surgery for SG are feasible with acceptable outcomes and similar results on weight loss on the first postoperative year.
BACKGROUND: Few series are available on the results of repeat sleeve gastrectomy (re-SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) performed to manage the failure of primary sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The objective of this study was to compare the short- and medium-term outcomes of re-SG and RYGB after SG. MATERIAL & METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2017, patients undergoing re-SG (n = 61) and RYGB (n = 83) for failure of primary SG were included in this study. Revisional surgery was proposed for patients with insufficient excess weight loss (EWL ≤ 50%) or weight regain. The primary endpoint was the comparison of weight loss in the re-SG group and the RYGB group at the 1-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were overall mortality and morbidity, specific morbidity, length of stay, weight loss, and correction of comorbidities. RESULTS: The mean interval between SG and re-SG was 41.5 vs. 43.2 months between SG and RYGB (p = 0.32). The mean operative time was 103 min (re-SG group) vs. 129.4 min (RYGB group). One death (1.7%; re-SG group) and 25 complications (17.4%; 9 in the re-SG group, 16 in the RYGB group) were observed. At the 1 year, mean body mass index was 31.6 in the re-SG group and 32.5 in the RYGB group (p = 0.61) and excess weight loss was 69.5 vs. 61.2, respectively (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Re-SG and RYGB as revisional surgery for SG are feasible with acceptable outcomes and similar results on weight loss on the first postoperative year.
Authors: Yang Hu; Gang Ji; Guanya Li; Peter Manza; Wenchao Zhang; Jia Wang; Ganggang Lv; Yang He; Zhida Zhang; Kai Yuan; Karen M von Deneen; Antao Chen; Guangbin Cui; Huaning Wang; Corinde E Wiers; Nora D Volkow; Yongzhan Nie; Yi Zhang; Gene-Jack Wang Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 5.357