Analysis of Obesity-Related Outcomes and Bariatric Failure Rates With the Duodenal Switch vs Gastric Bypass for Morbid Obesity

Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill.: 1960) (Impact Factor: 4.93). 09/2012; 147(9):847-54. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2012.1654
Source: PubMed


OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of a large cohort undergoing biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (DS) vs gastric bypass (GB). DESIGN Retrospective review of the Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database from 2007 to 2010. All inpatient and outpatient follow-up data were analyzed. SETTING Multicenter database. PATIENTS Patients undergoing primary DS were compared with a concurrent cohort undergoing GB. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The main outcome measures were (1) weight loss; (2) control of comorbidities including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and sleep apnea; and (3) failure to achieve at least 50% excess body weight loss. RESULTS One thousand five hundred forty-five patients underwent DS and 77 406 underwent GB, with a mean preoperative body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 52 and 48, respectively (P < .01). The DS was associated with longer operative times, greater blood loss, and longer lengths of hospital stay (all P < .05). Early reoperation rates were higher in the DS group (3.3% vs 1.5%). Percentage of change in BMI was significantly greater in the DS group at all follow-up intervals (P < .05). Subgroup analysis of the superobese population (BMI >50) revealed significantly greater percentage of excess body weight loss in the DS group at 2 years (79% vs 67%; P < .01). Comorbidity control of diabetes, hypertension, and sleep apnea were all superior with the DS (all P < .05). The risk of weight loss failure was significantly reduced with DS vs GB for all patients, with a greater reduction in the BMI more than 50 subgroup. CONCLUSIONS The DS is a less commonly used bariatric operation, with higher early risks compared with GB. However, the DS achieved better weight and comorbidity control, with even more pronounced benefits among the superobese.

7 Reads
  • Source
    • "The LMGB restricts stomach capacity and has a malabsorptive/hormonal component from a considerably longer biliopancreatic limb (BPL) than the present day RYGB that has a BPL 50–75 cm in length. The longer BPL in a biliopancreatic diversion with or without the duodenal switch has been shown to produce better metabolic and weight loss effect without the disadvantages of a loop gastrojejunostomy [11]. The only gain in not performing a Roux-en-Y anastomosis in LMGB is avoiding a JJ. "

    Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases 10/2014; 11(2). DOI:10.1016/j.soard.2014.10.001 · 4.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Morbid obesity is the indication for surgical treatment known as bariatric surgery. There are still discussions concerning which procedure should be performed on a particular patient [1–4]. Although great progress has been achieved in bariatric surgery in recent years, it is still not free of life-threatening complications [5–7]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intragastric balloon placement is a common method of treatment of obesity and is often used by non-surgical teams in endoscopy departments. The likelihood of spontaneous intragastric balloon damage is a well-known phenomenon. We describe a patient who was disqualified from surgical obesity treatment and in whom intragastric fluid-filled balloons had already been inserted twice and removed due to their intolerance. Therefore we qualified this patient for placement of the air-filled balloon Heliosphere BAG. Two months after the planned check-up, he arrived at the surgery department complaining of nausea and vomiting and due to symptoms of ileus diagnosed with an X-ray and ultrasound examination we qualified him for emergency surgery. We would like to emphasise the following issues: the necessity of air-filled balloon removal according to the producer's instructions and multidisciplinary specialist team care along with appropriate diagnostic tools in every case of intragastric balloon insertion.
    Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques / Wideochirurgia i Inne Techniki Malo Inwazyjne 06/2014; 9(2):292-6. DOI:10.5114/wiitm.2011.38177 · 1.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Drainage of food from this small stomach remnant is redirected via a gastrojejunal anastomosis, such that approximately 150 cm of proximal small intestine is bypassed. Excess body weight loss seen two years after RYGB is approximately 70% [49]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Substantial heterogeneity exists in weight loss trajectories amongst patients following bariatric surgery. Hormonal factors are postulated to be amongst the contributors to the variation seen. Several hormones involved in hunger, satiety, and energy balance are affected by bariatric surgery, with the alteration in hormonal milieu varying by procedure. Limited research has been conducted to examine potential hormonal mediators of weight loss failure or recidivism following bariatric surgery. While hormonal factors that influence weight loss success following gastric banding have not been identified, data suggest that hormonal factors may be involved in modulating weight loss success following gastric bypass. There may be hormonal mediators involved in determining the weight trajectory following sleeve gastrectomy, though the extremely limited data currently available prohibits definitive conclusions from being drawn. There is great need for future research studies to explore this knowledge gap, as improving this knowledge base could be of benefit to guide clinicians toward understanding the hormonal contributors to a patient's postoperative weight loss failure or recidivism or perhaps be of value in selecting the most appropriate bariatric procedure based on the preoperative hormone milieu. Integrative interdisciplinary approaches exploring these complex interrelationships could potentially increase the explanatory power of such investigations.
    Gastroenterology Research and Practice 10/2013; 2013(8):528450. DOI:10.1155/2013/528450 · 1.75 Impact Factor
Show more