4.4 Article

Three-year weight outcomes from a bariatric surgery registry in a large integrated healthcare system

Journal

SURGERY FOR OBESITY AND RELATED DISEASES
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages 396-403

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2014.02.044

Keywords

Racial and ethnic minorities; Successful weight loss; Surgical quality monitoring; Men and women

Categories

Funding

  1. Southern California Permanente Medical Group

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A registry was created for patients having procedures for weight loss from 2004 to the present time at a large integrated healthcare system. The objective of this study was to compare findings to the literature and national quality monitoring databases and present 3-year weight loss outcomes. Methods: Patients are passively enrolled in the registry with the following characteristics: a bariatric procedure for weight loss after January 1, 2004 and actively enrolled in the health plan at the time of surgery. Results: Compared to national surgical quality databases, the registry (n = 20,296) has a similar proportion of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB; 58%), more vertical sleeve gastrectomy (SG; 40%), fewer banding (2%) procedures, more Hispanic patients (35%), and higher rates of 1 year follow-up (78%). RYGB patients lost more weight at every time point up to 3 years after surgery compared with SG patients (P < .001). Non-Hispanic white RYGB patients had a higher percent excess weight loss than non-Hispanic black (P < .001) and Hispanic (P < .001) RYGB patients. There were no differences between SG racial/ethnic groups in percent excess weight loss throughout the 3-year follow-up period. Conclusion: We are one of the first groups to publish comparison weight outcomes for RYGB and SG in a diverse patient population, showing that the responses to RYGB and not SG vary by race/ethnicity. (C) 2014 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available