One-stage versus two-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass as redo surgery of failed adjustable gastric banding

One-stage versus two-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass as redo surgery of failed adjustable gastric banding

The study focussed on whether a one-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass (OS-RYGB) or a two-stage RYGB (TS-RYGB) has a significant advantage in terms of perioperative risk in patients after failed adjustable gastric banding (AGB). Data collection included patients who underwent OS-RYGB or TS-RYGB after AGB b...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England Vol. 105; no. 7; pp. 614 - 622
Main Authors: Thaher, O, Driouch, J, Hukauf, M, Stroh, C
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: England BMJ Publishing Group LTD 01-09-2023
Royal College of Surgeons
Subjects:
Body mass index
Diabetes
Gastric Bypass - adverse effects
Gastric Bypass - methods
Gastrointestinal surgery
Gastroplasty - adverse effects
General Surgery
Humans
Laparoscopy - adverse effects
Laparoscopy - methods
Obesity
Obesity, Morbid - complications
Obesity, Morbid - surgery
Patients
Postoperative Complications - epidemiology
Postoperative Complications - etiology
Postoperative Complications - surgery
Quality control
Reoperation
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Weight control
Weight Loss
Germany
Perioperative complications
Two-stage procedure
Gastric banding
One-stage procedure
Gastric bypass
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The study focussed on whether a one-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass (OS-RYGB) or a two-stage RYGB (TS-RYGB) has a significant advantage in terms of perioperative risk in patients after failed adjustable gastric banding (AGB). Data collection included patients who underwent OS-RYGB or TS-RYGB after AGB between 2005 and 2019 and whose outcomes were compared with those after primary RYGB (P-RYGB). Outcome criteria were perioperative complications, comorbidities, 30-day mortality and operating time. The study analysed data from patients who underwent OS-RYGB ( = 525), TS-RYGB ( = 382) and P-RYGB ( = 26,445). Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were significantly lower for P-RYGB ( < 0.001). Total intraoperative and specific postoperative complication rates were significantly lower in TS-RYGB than in OS-RYGB ( = 0.048 and < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, the total general postoperative complication rate was lower in OS-RYGB than in TS-RYGB ( < 0.001). The mean operating time differed significantly among the three groups (P-RYGB 96.5min, OS-RYGB 141.2min and TS-RYGB 190.9min; < 0.001). The mortality rate was not significantly different between the three groups. Based on the significant difference between the two groups in revision surgery and the slight difference with the results of primary RYGB, this study concludes that removal of a failed AGB is safe and feasible with either the OS- or TS-RYGB procedure. However, we cannot directly recommend either procedure in our study. Proper patient selection and surgeon experience are critical to avoid potential adverse effects.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0035-8843
1478-7083
1478-7083
DOI:10.1308/rcsann.2022.0085