4.4 Article

Revision of sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: A Canadian experience

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 213, Issue 5, Pages 970-974

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.04.003

Keywords

Revision; Sleeve; Gastrectomy; Gastric; Bypass; Bariatric

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Sleeve gastrectomy SG) can be associated with inadequate weight loss, insufficient resolution of co-morbidities and severe reflux. Conversion to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass RYGB) is a potential solution. The aim of this study was to determine the common indications for conversion from SG to RYGB at our centre, and evaluate patient outcomes with respect to weight loss and co-morbidity resolution. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent conversion from SG to RYGB between 2008 and 2015. Results: 273 SGs were performed of which 6.6% n = 18) were converted to RYGB most commonly due to inadequate weight loss 65.3%) and severe reflux 26.1%). Two patients were converted as a planned twostage approach to RYGB. Patients went from a mean preoperative BMI of 50.5 to a mean BMI of 40.5 postSG on average by 20.9 months. The mean time to conversion was 41.8 months. There was a positive correlation between pre-SG BMI and time to conversion p = 0.040). The mean BMI after conversion was 36.4, but this additional weight loss was not significant p = 0.057). After conversion, four of the five diabetic patients are now medication free and 75% of patients no longer have reflux symptoms. All patients had complete resolution of their hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea. Revision perioperative complication rates were comparable to primary RYGB. Two patients developed new onset iron deficiency anemia. Conclusion: Revision to RYGB is a safe option for SG failure and resulted in significant benefits from comorbidity resolution. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. 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