3.8 Article

Laparoscopic revision of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to sleeve gastrectomy: A ray of hope for failed Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Journal

ASIAN JOURNAL OF ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 122-127

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ases.12277

Keywords

Bypass to sleeve; dumping syndrome; weight regain

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the most commonly performed bariatric operation across the world, but sometimes revision is necessary. Inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and complications such as dumping syndrome are common reasons for revision. We report the 1-year outcomes of five patients who underwent laparoscopic conversion of RYGB to sleeve gastrectomy during surgical revision. Methods: Mean age was 38.8 +/- 9.1 years. Mean BMI at primary surgery was 57.9 +/- 8.1 kg/m(2). Two patients were diabetic and sleep apneic. One was hypertensive. All patients underwent a RYGB as the primary weight loss procedure. Mean weight loss was 36.8 +/- 8.6 kg (excess weight loss = 39.8 +/- 14.9%) at 2 years. At the end of 5 years, these patients regained 10.9 +/- 4.1 kg (31.5 +/- 13.6% of excess weight loss). Primary indications for revision surgery were failure to lose weight, weight regain, and intractable dumping syndrome. Mean duration between primary and revision surgery was 6.2 +/- 1.1 years. RYGB was converted to sleeve gastrectomy as a first stage in all cases. Results: Mean duration of revision surgery was 120.0 +/- 15.5 min. Mean blood loss was 70 +/- 50 mL. One year after revision surgery, a mean weight loss of 21.5 +/- 10.5 kg was achieved (mean excess weight loss = 35.8 +/- 8.8%). Two patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and the one with hypertension achieved remission. Dumping was resolved. There were no complications. Conclusion: Laparoscopic conversion of RYGB to sleeve gastrectomy as a first stage may be considered as an additional option in the armamentarium of revision procedures after RYGB.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available