4.4 Article

Trends in Weight Regain Following Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) Bariatric Surgery

期刊

OBESITY SURGERY
卷 25, 期 8, 页码 1474-1481

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-014-1560-z

关键词

Bariatric surgery; Weight loss; Weight regain

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The primary purpose of this study was to assess weight loss and occurrence of weight regain among patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) using categorical analysis. Study participants were selected from patients who underwent RYGB from a single institution. Participants (n = 300, mean procedure age = 45.6 +/- 9.9) completed surveys for self-reported preoperative weight, current weight, and subsequent weights over postoperative years. Measured weights and confirmed procedure dates were acquired from patient medical records. Mean preoperative weight and BMI were 140.8 kg +/- 32.1 and 49.7 +/- 9.9, respectively, and mean years since surgery was 6.9 +/- 4.9. Study subjects were mostly Caucasian (56.7 %) and female (80.3 %). Participants were stratified a priori into four cohorts based on percent of weight loss at 1 year, < 25 % (n = 39), 25-30 % (n = 51), 30-35 % (n = 73), and > 35 % (n = 113). General linear model analyses were conducted to assess the effect of year one weight loss on percent weight regain. The mean weight regain for all patients was 23.4 % of maximum weight loss. Using categorical analysis, mean weight regain in the < 25, 25-30, 30-35, and > 35 % weight loss cohorts was 29.1, 21.9, 20.9, and 23.8 %, respectively. Excessive weight regain, defined as a parts per thousand yen25 % of total lost weight, occurred in 37 % of patients. Weight gain is a common complication following RYGB surgery. Despite the percentage of weight loss over the first year, all cohort patient groups regained on average between 21 and 29 % of lost weight. Excessive weight gain was experienced by over one third of patients. Greater initial absolute weight loss leads to more successful long-term weight outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据