uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Long-term follow-up in patients undergoing open gastric bypass as a revisional operation for previous failed restrictive procedures
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Upper Abdominal Surgery.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Upper Abdominal Surgery.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Upper Abdominal Surgery.
2012 (English)In: Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases, ISSN 1550-7289, E-ISSN 1878-7533, Vol. 8, no 6, 696-701 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background

We have previously described our early experience with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as a revisional procedure. The favorable results have stimulated us to continue using RYGB as our standard operating procedure after failed bariatric surgery. Our objective was to evaluate the perioperative risks, weight result, and abdominal symptoms 5 years after revisional RYGB surgery at a university hospital in Sweden.

Methods

We studied 121 patients undergoing revisional open RYGB (age 42.0 yr, body mass index 37.7 kg/m2, 101 women) 5 years after RYGB surgery. The patients underwent reoperation because of either intolerable side effects or inferior weight loss. The initial procedures were horizontal gastroplasty (n = 2), vertical banded gastroplasty (n = 34), gastric banding (n = 21), and silicone adjustable gastric banding (n = 64). The mean interval between the first surgery and revision was 5 years. The 5-year follow-up data were obtained annually using a questionnaire survey.

Results

The average operating time was 162 minutes (range 75–355). In these 121 cases, 10 (8%) reoperations were performed in the first 30-day period (4 for leakage). No perioperative mortality occurred, and the 5-year follow-up rate was 91%. The mean body mass index was 30.7 kg/m2. Seven patients (5.7%) had undergone subsequent surgery because of complications. At follow-up, 93% reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the revisional procedure. Disturbing abdominal symptoms after RYGB were rare.

Conclusion

The perioperative risks of revisional RYGB are greater than those for primary RYGB. However, because the long-term weight results and patient satisfaction are very good, we believe that the 8% reoperative rate is acceptable. We consider RYGB to be a suitable procedure for patients in whom previous bariatric procedures have failed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. Vol. 8, no 6, 696-701 p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-173036DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2011.06.011ISI: 000311919800007PubMedID: 21865097OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-173036DiVA: diva2:516340
Available from: 2012-04-18 Created: 2012-04-18 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Hedberg, JakobGustavsson, SvenSundbom, Magnus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hedberg, JakobGustavsson, SvenSundbom, Magnus
By organisation
Upper Abdominal Surgery
In the same journal
Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 490 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf