Mohamed Hany1, Iman El Sayed2, Ahmed Zidan3, Mohamed Ibrahim3, Ann Samy Shafiq Agayby3, Bart Torensma4. 1. Department of Surgery, Medical Research Institute, Alexandria University, 165 Horreya Avenue, Hadara, Alexandria, 21561, Egypt. mohamed.ashour@alexu.edu.eg. 2. Biomedical Informatics and Medical Statistics Department, Medical Research Institute, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. 3. Department of Surgery, Medical Research Institute, Alexandria University, 165 Horreya Avenue, Hadara, Alexandria, 21561, Egypt. 4. Clinical Epidemiologist, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One-stage revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) after Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is widely adopted, but its safety is still debated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare outcomes between primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (PRYGB and RRYGB after LAGB. METHOD: A retrospective record-based cohort study of patients who underwent PRYGB and RRYGB for failed LAGB and completed at least 2 years of follow-up from 2008 to 2019. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to obtain a balanced sample of patients with RRYGB and PRYGB interventions by adjusting for baseline covariates including age and sex. RESULTS: Patients with PRYGB (n = 558) and RRYGB (n = 156) were included. PSM identified 98 patients for RRYGB and 98 patients for PRYGB. Both cohorts exhibited significant reductions in BMI compared to baseline values (p < 0.001), but reductions were significantly higher in PRYGB compared to those in RRGYB at 6 months (- 10.55 ± 8.54 vs. - 8.38 ± 5.07; p = 0.032), 1-year (- 21.50 ± 8.19 vs. 16.14 ± 6.93; p < 0.001), and 2 years (- 24.02 ± 7.85 vs. - 18.93 ± 6.80; p < 0.001), respectively. A significant improvement in food tolerance from the 1st to the 2nd year was seen after RYGB (p < 0.001). The rates of early and late complications were similar in both cohorts (p = 0.537, p = 1.00). Overall re-intervention rates were 5.1 and 3.1% for RRYGB and PRYGB p = 0.721). Both cohorts exhibited significant improvement in comorbidities after 2 years (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: One-stage RRYGB for failed LAGB is safe and effective with comparable rates of complications, re-interventions, and resolution of associated comorbid conditions compared to PRYGB.
BACKGROUND: One-stage revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) after Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is widely adopted, but its safety is still debated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare outcomes between primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (PRYGB and RRYGB after LAGB. METHOD: A retrospective record-based cohort study of patients who underwent PRYGB and RRYGB for failed LAGB and completed at least 2 years of follow-up from 2008 to 2019. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to obtain a balanced sample of patients with RRYGB and PRYGB interventions by adjusting for baseline covariates including age and sex. RESULTS: Patients with PRYGB (n = 558) and RRYGB (n = 156) were included. PSM identified 98 patients for RRYGB and 98 patients for PRYGB. Both cohorts exhibited significant reductions in BMI compared to baseline values (p < 0.001), but reductions were significantly higher in PRYGB compared to those in RRGYB at 6 months (- 10.55 ± 8.54 vs. - 8.38 ± 5.07; p = 0.032), 1-year (- 21.50 ± 8.19 vs. 16.14 ± 6.93; p < 0.001), and 2 years (- 24.02 ± 7.85 vs. - 18.93 ± 6.80; p < 0.001), respectively. A significant improvement in food tolerance from the 1st to the 2nd year was seen after RYGB (p < 0.001). The rates of early and late complications were similar in both cohorts (p = 0.537, p = 1.00). Overall re-intervention rates were 5.1 and 3.1% for RRYGB and PRYGB p = 0.721). Both cohorts exhibited significant improvement in comorbidities after 2 years (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: One-stage RRYGB for failed LAGB is safe and effective with comparable rates of complications, re-interventions, and resolution of associated comorbid conditions compared to PRYGB.
Authors: Andrea Lazzati; Marie De Antonio; Luca Paolino; Francesco Martini; Daniel Azoulay; Antonio Iannelli; Sandrine Katsahian Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Isabelle Debergh; Barbara Defoort; Marieke De Visschere; Silke Flahou; Sebastiaan Van Cauwenberge; Jan P Mulier; Bruno Dillemans Journal: Acta Chir Belg Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 1.090
Authors: A Schäfer; Philipp Gehwolf; J Umlauft; T Dziodzio; M Biebl; A Perathoner; F Cakar-Beck; H Wykypiel Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: K Arapis; P Tammaro; L Ribeiro Parenti; A L Pelletier; D Chosidow; M Kousouri; C Magnan; B Hansel; J P Marmuse Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Piotr K Kowalewski; Robert Olszewski; Andrzej Kwiatkowski; Natalia Gałązka-Świderek; Krzysztof Cichoń; Krzysztof Paśnik Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 4.129