4.4 Article

Revision Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass to Biliopancreatic Long-Limb Gastric Bypass for Inadequate Weight Response: Case Series and Analysis

Journal

OBESITY SURGERY
Volume 27, Issue 9, Pages 2293-2302

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-017-2658-x

Keywords

Long-limb Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LLRYGB); Failedweight loss after Roux-en-Y gastricbypass (RYGB); Revision after RYGB

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The long-limb Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LLRYGB) was introduced in 1987 as a salvage operation for inadequate weight loss after a standard Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Methods We report on 53 consecutive patients (44 females) with conversion of a failed RYGB to a LLRYGB performed by a single surgeon between 2002 and 2014. No patient had an ascertainable anatomic abnormality to explain his/her weight regain. LLRYGB revision consisted of a 75-cm to 100-cm alimentary Roux limb and a 75-cm to 100-cm common channel; after 2011, in suitable patients, the Roux limb was lengthened to greater than 250 cm. Results Average values for weight (lbs) were as follows: preoriginal RYGB = 329; lowest measured after RYGB = 196; at time of LLRYGB = 285; and at 1, 2, 3, 4, > 5 years post LLRYGB = 225, 207, 199, 197, 195, for a sustained weight loss > 90 lbs. Average values for BMI (kg/m(2)) were as follows: pre-original RYGB = 54.3; lowest measured after RYGB = 32.3; at time of LLRYGB = 47.2; and at 1, 2, 3, 4, > 5 years post LLRYGB = 37.1, 34.4, 33.0, 32.8, 31.4, for a sustained BMI reduction > 16.5 kg/m(2). Zero operative mortality; 3 (5.7%) late deaths; 7 (13.2%) 30-day complications; 33 (62.3%) long-term complications with 23 (43.4%) needing TPN; and 14 (26.4%) requiring operative revision. Conclusion A salvage LLRYGB procedure can be performed safely and is weight successful, but fraught with long-term nutritional problems and a high necessity for revision. A Roux segment over 250 cm may improve outcomes.

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