Loading…

Revisional Bariatric Surgery for Unsuccessful Weight Loss and Complications

Background There are growing numbers of patients who require revisional bariatric surgery due to the undesirable results of their primary procedures. The aim of this study was to review our experience with bariatric patients undergoing revisional surgery. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Obesity surgery 2013-11, Vol.23 (11), p.1766-1773
Main Authors: Shimizu, Hideharu, Annaberdyev, Shohrat, Motamarry, Isaac, Kroh, Matthew, Schauer, Philip R., Brethauer, Stacy A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background There are growing numbers of patients who require revisional bariatric surgery due to the undesirable results of their primary procedures. The aim of this study was to review our experience with bariatric patients undergoing revisional surgery. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis to review the indications for revisional bariatric procedures and assess their postoperative outcomes. Results From 04/04 to 01/11, 2,918 patients underwent bariatric surgery at our institution. A total of 154 patients (5.3 %) of these cases were coded as revisional procedures. The mean age at revision was 49.1 ± 11.3 and the mean BMI was 44.0 ± 13.7 kg/m 2 . Revisional surgery was performed laparoscopically in 121 patients (78.6 %). Laparoscopic revisions had less blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and fewer complications compared to open revisions. Two groups (A and B) were defined by the indication for revision: patients with unsuccessful weight loss (group A, n  = 106) and patients with complications of their primary procedures (group B, n  = 48). In group A, 74.5 % of the patients were revised to a bypass procedure and 25.5 % to a restrictive procedure. Mean excess weight loss was 53.7 ± 29.3 % after revision of primary restrictive procedures and 37.6 ± 35.1 % after revision of bypass procedures at >1-year follow-up ( p  
ISSN:0960-8923
1708-0428
DOI:10.1007/s11695-013-1012-1