BACKGROUND AND AIMS: An enlarged gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJA) is associated with weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and can be corrected with endoscopic or surgical revision; however, there has been no direct comparison between techniques. This study aims to compare serious adverse event (AE) rates and weight loss profiles between endoscopic and surgical revisional techniques over a 5-year period. METHODS: This is a retrospective matched cohort study of RYGB patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical revision for weight regain with an enlarged GJA (>12 mm). Patients who underwent endoscopic revision (ENDO group) were matched 1:1 to those undergoing surgical revision (SURG group) based on completion of 5-year follow-up, age, sex, body mass index, initial weight loss, and weight regain. Demographics, GJA size, serious AEs, and weight profiles were collected. The primary outcome was comparison of serious AE rates between groups. Secondary outcomes included weight loss comparisons. A Fisher exact test was used to compare the serious AE rate, and a Student t test was used for weight comparisons. RESULTS: Sixty-two RYGB patients with weight regain and an enlarged GJA (31 ENDO, 31 matched SURG) were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The AE rate in the ENDO group (6.5%) was lower than the SURG group (29.0%, P = .043). Zero and 6 (19.4%) serious (severe) AEs occurred in the ENDO and SURG groups, respectively (P = .02). There was no significant difference in weight loss at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic revision of the GJA is associated with significantly fewer total and serious AEs and similar long-term weight loss when compared with surgical revision.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: An enlarged gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJA) is associated with weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and can be corrected with endoscopic or surgical revision; however, there has been no direct comparison between techniques. This study aims to compare serious adverse event (AE) rates and weight loss profiles between endoscopic and surgical revisional techniques over a 5-year period. METHODS: This is a retrospective matched cohort study of RYGB patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical revision for weight regain with an enlarged GJA (>12 mm). Patients who underwent endoscopic revision (ENDO group) were matched 1:1 to those undergoing surgical revision (SURG group) based on completion of 5-year follow-up, age, sex, body mass index, initial weight loss, and weight regain. Demographics, GJA size, serious AEs, and weight profiles were collected. The primary outcome was comparison of serious AE rates between groups. Secondary outcomes included weight loss comparisons. A Fisher exact test was used to compare the serious AE rate, and a Student t test was used for weight comparisons. RESULTS: Sixty-two RYGB patients with weight regain and an enlarged GJA (31 ENDO, 31 matched SURG) were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The AE rate in the ENDO group (6.5%) was lower than the SURG group (29.0%, P = .043). Zero and 6 (19.4%) serious (severe) AEs occurred in the ENDO and SURG groups, respectively (P = .02). There was no significant difference in weight loss at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic revision of the GJA is associated with significantly fewer total and serious AEs and similar long-term weight loss when compared with surgical revision.
Authors: Vilma Maria Junges; Jarbas Marinho Cavalheiro; Eliana Franzoi Fam; Vera Elizabeth Closs; João Feliz Moraes; Maria Gabriela Gottlieb Journal: Arq Gastroenterol Date: 2017-03-16
Authors: Christopher C Thompson; Bipan Chand; Yang K Chen; Daniel C DeMarco; Larry Miller; Michael Schweitzer; Richard I Rothstein; David B Lautz; James Slattery; Michele B Ryan; Stacy Brethauer; Phillip Schauer; Mack C Mitchell; Anthony Starpoli; Gregory B Haber; Marc F Catalano; Steven Edmundowicz; Annette M Fagnant; Lee M Kaplan; Mitchell S Roslin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: David Arterburn; Robert Wellman; Ana Emiliano; Steven R Smith; Andrew O Odegaard; Sameer Murali; Neely Williams; Karen J Coleman; Anita Courcoulas; R Yates Coley; Jane Anau; Roy Pardee; Sengwee Toh; Cheri Janning; Andrea Cook; Jessica Sturtevant; Casie Horgan; Kathleen M McTigue Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jacqueline Odom; Kerstyn C Zalesin; Tamika L Washington; Wendy W Miller; Basil Hakmeh; Danielle L Zaremba; Mohamed Altattan; Mamtha Balasubramaniam; Deborah S Gibbs; Kevin R Krause; David L Chengelis; Barry A Franklin; Peter A McCullough Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2009-06-25 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Lars Sjöström; Kristina Narbro; C David Sjöström; Kristjan Karason; Bo Larsson; Hans Wedel; Ted Lystig; Marianne Sullivan; Claude Bouchard; Björn Carlsson; Calle Bengtsson; Sven Dahlgren; Anders Gummesson; Peter Jacobson; Jan Karlsson; Anna-Karin Lindroos; Hans Lönroth; Ingmar Näslund; Torsten Olbers; Kaj Stenlöf; Jarl Torgerson; Göran Agren; Lena M S Carlsson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-08-23 Impact factor: 91.245