Mauricio Gonzalez-Urquijo1, David E Hinojosa-Gonzalez2, Ale Gibran Alam Gidi2, Sofia Hurtado Arellano2, Eduardo Flores-Villalba3, Javier Rojas-Mendez2. 1. Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dr. Ignacio Morones Prieto O 3000, 64710, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico. mauriciogzzu@gmail.com. 2. Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dr. Ignacio Morones Prieto O 3000, 64710, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico. 3. Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Engineering and Sciences, Av. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501 Sur, Tecnológico, 64849, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Revisional surgery is technically demanding and is usually associated with higher intraoperative and perioperative risks than primary procedures. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes of patients who had gastric bypass procedures performed as a rescue procedure for failed gastric banding, with those who had a primary gastric bypass. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The group of patients undergoing revisional gastric bypass for failed gastric band was matched in a 1:2 ratio with control patients who underwent a primary RYGB, based on gender, score, preoperative body mass index, and comorbidities. Data were retrospectively retrieved. RESULTS: Thirty one (33.3%) patients underwent band removal and gastric bypass (group A) and 62 (66.6%) only primary gastric bypass (group B). Nonsignificant differences were seen in operative time, operative bleeding, or length of stay. Complications were more frequent in group A. Postoperative weight at 12-month follow-up was greater in group A, however, not statistically significant. Changes in weight, both absolute, and percentage were not different between groups. This observation was also true for BMI, in which no significant differences were seen. Overall, mean follow-up was 16 ± 3.2 months. CONCLUSION: Gastric bypass can be performed as revisional bariatric surgery, with low complication rates and acceptable outcomes, though not with the same safety as a primary procedure. Gastric bypass is a satisfactory option for patients with a failed gastric band.
BACKGROUND: Revisional surgery is technically demanding and is usually associated with higher intraoperative and perioperative risks than primary procedures. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes of patients who had gastric bypass procedures performed as a rescue procedure for failed gastric banding, with those who had a primary gastric bypass. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The group of patients undergoing revisional gastric bypass for failed gastric band was matched in a 1:2 ratio with control patients who underwent a primary RYGB, based on gender, score, preoperative body mass index, and comorbidities. Data were retrospectively retrieved. RESULTS: Thirty one (33.3%) patients underwent band removal and gastric bypass (group A) and 62 (66.6%) only primary gastric bypass (group B). Nonsignificant differences were seen in operative time, operative bleeding, or length of stay. Complications were more frequent in group A. Postoperative weight at 12-month follow-up was greater in group A, however, not statistically significant. Changes in weight, both absolute, and percentage were not different between groups. This observation was also true for BMI, in which no significant differences were seen. Overall, mean follow-up was 16 ± 3.2 months. CONCLUSION: Gastric bypass can be performed as revisional bariatric surgery, with low complication rates and acceptable outcomes, though not with the same safety as a primary procedure. Gastric bypass is a satisfactory option for patients with a failed gastric band.
Authors: Markus Weber; Markus K Müller; Jean-Marie Michel; Rahim Belal; Fritz Horber; Renward Hauser; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Pierre Fournier; Daniel Gero; Anna Dayer-Jankechova; Pierre Allemann; Nicolas Demartines; Jean-Pierre Marmuse; Michel Suter Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Peter T Hallowell; Thomas A Stellato; David A Yao; Ann Robinson; Margaret M Schuster; Kristen N Graf Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Michał Pędziwiatr; Piotr Małczak; Mateusz Wierdak; Mateusz Rubinkiewicz; Magdalena Pisarska; Piotr Major; Michał Wysocki; W Konrad Karcz; Andrzej Budzyński Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 4.129