Abstract
Background
Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) frequently requires conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) due to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or weight recurrence. Current evidence evaluating the safety of conversion from SG to RYGB and its indications is limited to single centers.
Methods
The objective was to determine the rate of serious complications and mortality of conversion of SG to RYGB (SG-RYGB) compared to primary RYGB (P-RYGB). This was a retrospective analysis of the MBSAQIP database which includes 30-day outcomes. Individuals undergoing P-RYGB or SG-RYGB were included. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine if revisional surgery was an independent predictor of serious complications or mortality.
Results
In 2020 and 2021, 84,543 (86.3%) patients underwent P-RYGB and 13,432 (13.7%) underwent SG-RYGB. SG-RYGB cohort had lower body mass index, lower rates of diabetes and hypertension, and higher rates of GERD. GERD was the most common indication for revision (55.3%) followed by weight regain (24.4%) and inadequate weight loss (12.7%). SG-RYGB had longer operative times (145 vs. 125 min, p < 0.001) and a higher rate of serious complications (7.2 vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001). This included higher rates of anastomotic leak (0.5 vs. 0.4%, p = 0.002), bleeding (2.0 vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001), and reoperation (3.0 vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001) but not death (0.1 vs. 0.1%, p = 0.385). On multivariable analysis, SG-RYGB was independently predictive of serious complications (OR 1.21, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.32, p < 0.001) but not mortality (p = 0.316).
Conclusions
While SG-RYGB is safe with a low complication rate, SG-RYGB was associated with a higher rate of serious complications compared to P-RYGB.
Graphical Abstract
Keywords: Sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, Conversion, Revision, Bariatric surgery, Complications
Introduction
Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are currently the two most commonly performed bariatric surgeries [1]. Their popularity has increased over the past decade due to research advances that demonstrate their safety and sustained weight loss efficacy [2]. While RYGB is considered the gold standard procedure for weight loss, SG is increasingly performed as it has fewer complications, requires less operative time, and has a lower risk of micronutrient deficiencies [3]. However, SG is more often associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), weight recurrence, and inadequate weight loss when compared to RYGB [3], and these complications may necessitate revisional surgery.
Patients who undergo SG can require further surgical intervention to alleviate symptoms of GERD and weight recurrence [4–6]. The most common conversion choice for revisions after sleeve gastrectomy is RYGB, given its proven ability to relieve GERD and improve weight loss. However, revisional surgeries are more complex and have been associated with higher complication rates [5, 7, 8]. A systematic review in 2018 reported a higher risk of complications with revisional RYGB compared to primary RYGB. However, in this study, initial procedures were heterogenous and included few primary SG procedures [9].
Current evidence evaluating the safety of revisional RYGB is limited to single centers, and few studies compare primary versus secondary RYGB after SG. With the rise in revisional procedures, it becomes more crucial to evaluate the safety of one of the most popular revisional bariatric surgeries on a larger scale.
Due to the limitations of previous studies and the growing need to study the revisional surgery population, our study is aimed at determining the rate of 30-day serious complications and mortality of primary RYGB (P-RYGB) compared to sleeve gastrectomy converted to RYGB (SG-RYGB) using new variables added to the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database. Secondary objectives include identifying and characterizing indications for SG-RYGB conversion.
Methods
Data Source
A retrospective analysis of the MBSAQIP data registry was performed. Only the 2020 and 2021 years were included as there was a modification in 2020 that included additional details on revisional surgery that were previously not reported. The MBSAQIP currently captures clinical data from 902 accredited American and Canadian centers. The data registry prospectively collects data and contains standardized pre-, intra-, and post-operative variables specific to bariatric surgery patients. This study included laparoscopic and robotic-assisted P-RYGB and revisional SG-RYGB procedures. Open and endoscopic procedures were excluded.
Patient Variables
Basic demographic data including age, sex, race, and body mass index (BMI) were collected. Patient comorbidities included the following: type 2 diabetes, hypertension, GERD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hyperlipidemia, chronic steroid use, chronic kidney disease, dialysis dependency, venous stasis, preoperative therapeutic anticoagulant use, and obstructive sleep apnea. Patient history included previous venous thromboembolism (VTE), myocardial infarction (MI), percutaneous coronary intervention, and major cardiac surgery. Functional status variables encompassed preoperative functional status (defined as independent, partially dependent, or fully dependent) and American Society of anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status classification.
Objectives
The primary objective of this study was to determine the rate of serious complications and mortality of SG-RYGB and P-RYGB. Patients with at least one of the following complications within 30 days of surgery were defined as having a serious complication:
Anastomotic leak
Postoperative bleeding
Reoperation
Non-operative intervention
Cardiac event (cardiac arrest, MI, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation)
Pneumonia
Unplanned intubation
Acute kidney injury
Venous thromboembolism
Deep surgical site infection or wound disruption
Sepsis
Cerebrovascular accident
We aimed to develop a multivariable logistic regression model to determine risk factors associated with serious complications and mortality for patients undergoing SG-RYGB and P-RYGB. Secondary objectives included identifying and characterizing indications for SG-RYGB conversion.
Statistical Analysis
The descriptive categorical data were expressed as percentages, and the continuous data as weighted mean + standard deviation (SD). Univariate analyses were used to determine baseline differences between groups, using chi-squared tests for categorical data and independent sample t-tests for continuous data. Univariate logistic regression was used to compare differences between patients in the P-RYGB and SG-RYGB cohorts.
A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictive factors for serious complications and mortality within 30 days. The available case method addressed missing data as all variables had less than 5% missingness. Patient factors and operative time were included in the model. Any variable with a p value < 0.05 in univariate analysis was included in multivariable analysis. Variables were checked for collinearity via the variable inflation factors method. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and Brier score were used to assess validity and calibration of the multivariable model. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 17 [10].
Results
Patient Demographics
A total of 84,543 (86.3%) patients underwent P-RYGB and 13,432 (13.7%) underwent SG-RYGB. A higher proportion of SG-RYGB were female compared with P-RYGB (90.6 vs. 83.4%, p < 0.001). There were more patients of black race in the SG-RYGB cohort compared to P-RYGB (27.0 vs. 15.5%, p = 0.001). The mean age was slightly higher for SG-RYGB (45.8 ± 10.4 vs. 44.4 ± 11.5 years, p < 0.001). Likely from the effects of their previous SG, patients undergoing SG-RYGB had lower preoperative BMIs (39.6 ± 7.8 vs. 45.5 ± 7.5 kg/m2, p < 0.001) and lower rates of comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obstructive sleep apnea (Table 1).
Table 1.
Patient characteristics
| P-RYGB n = 84,543 |
SG-RYGB n = 13,432 |
p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | |||
| mean ± sd | 44.4 ± 11.5 | 45.8 ± 10.4 | < 0.001 |
| % female | 83.4 | 90.6 | < 0.001 |
| Race | |||
| White | 59,781 (70.7) | 8270 (61.6) | |
| Black or African American | 13,092 (15.5) | 3627 (27.0) | 0.001 |
| Other | 11,670 (13.8) | 1535 (11.4) | |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | |||
| mean ± sd | 45.5 ± 7.5 | 39.8 ± 7.8 | < 0.001 |
| Functional status | |||
| Independent | 84,011 (99.5) | 13,373 (99.6) | |
| Partially dependent | 441 (0.5) | 43 (0.3) | 0.005 |
| Fully dependent | 19 (0.0) | 5 (0.0) | |
| American Society of Anesthesiologists class | |||
| 1–2 | 12,798 (15.2) | 3585 (26.7) | |
| 3 | 68,242 (80.8) | 9565 (71.3) | 0.001 |
| 4–5 | 3445 (4.1) | 266 (2.0) | |
| Smoker in previous year | 5242 (6.2) | 641 (4.8) | < 0.001 |
| Diabetes | |||
| None or diet controlled | 59,231 (70.1) | 11,967 (89.1) | |
| Non-insulin dependent | 17,024 (20.1) | 1117 (8.3) | 0.002 |
| Insulin dependent | 8288 (9.8) | 348 (2.6) | |
| Hypertension | 40,613 (48.0) | 4608 (34.3) | < 0.001 |
| Gastroesophageal reflux disease | 35,569 (42.1) | 9717 (72.3) | 0.004 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 1155 (1.4) | 159 (1.2) | 0.088 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 22,507 (26.6) | 2294 (17.1) | < 0.001 |
| Chronic steroids | 1789 (2.1) | 383 (2.9) | < 0.001 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 433 (0.5) | 41 (0.3) | 0.001 |
| Dialysis dependent | 156 (0.2) | 21 (0.2) | 0.475 |
| History of venous thromboembolism | 2418 (2.9) | 462 (3.4) | < 0.001 |
| Venous stasis | 600 (0.7) | 69 (0.5) | 0.010 |
| Preoperative therapeutic anticoagulant use | 2451 (2.9) | 405 (3.0) | 0.458 |
| Obstructive sleep apnea | 36,739 (43.5) | 3152 (23.5) | < 0.001 |
| History of myocardial infarction | 938 (1.1) | 143 (1.1) | 0.644 |
| Previous percutaneous coronary intervention | 1274 (1.5) | 179 (1.3) | 0.121 |
| Previous major cardiac surgery | 673 (0.8) | 104 (0.8) | 0.792 |
P-RYGB, primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; SG-RYGB, sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
Conversion Indications
Rates of GERD were higher in the SG-RYGB cohort (72.3 vs. 42.1%, p = 0.004), and this represented the most common indication for revision (55.3%). The other main indications for revision were weight recurrence (24.4%) and inadequate weight loss (12.7%). Less common indications included dysphagia (1.6%), other (1.4%), stricture or obstruction (1.4%), nausea or vomiting (1.0%), persistent comorbidities (0.7%), adhesions (0.6%), mechanical malfunction (0.3%), staple line leak (0.2%), or abdominal pain (0.2%).
Procedural Factors
SG-RYGB had longer operative times than P-RYGB (145.4 ± 67.9 vs. 125.2 ± 57.0 min, p < 0.001). There was a slightly higher proportion of robotic-assisted cases in the SG-RYGB cohort (23.3 vs. 21.3%, p < 0.001). The hospital length of stay was similar between the two procedures at a median of 1 day (interquartile range [IQR] 1 day) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Perioperative factors and postoperative complications
| P-RYGB n = 84,543 |
SG-RYGB n = 13,432 |
p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operative time, minutes | |||
| mean ± sd | 125.2 ± 57.0 | 145.4 ± 67.9 | < 0.001 |
| Robotic assisted | 18,045 (21.3) | 3132 (23.3) | < 0.001 |
| Length of stay, days | |||
| Median (interquartile range) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | < 0.001 |
| Anastomotic leak | 309 (0.4) | 73 (0.5) | 0.002 |
| Postoperative bleeding | 1331 (1.6) | 268 (2.0) | < 0.001 |
| Reoperation | 1584 (1.9) | 405 (3.0) | < 0.001 |
| Non-operative intervention | 1252 (1.5) | 298 (2.2) | < 0.001 |
| Readmission | 4052 (4.8) | 985 (7.3) | < 0.001 |
| Cardiac events | 117 (0.1) | 16 (0.1) | 0.573 |
| Pneumonia | 311 (0.4) | 74 (0.6) | 0.002 |
| Unplanned intubation | 134 (0.2) | 20 (0.2) | 0.443 |
| Acute kidney injury | 115 (0.1) | 10 (0.1) | 0.063 |
| Venous thromboembolism | 297 (0.4) | 40 (0.3) | 0.325 |
| Deep surgical site infection | 453 (0.5) | 130 (1.0) | < 0.001 |
| Wound disruption | 64 (0.1) | 16 (0.1) | 0.120 |
| Sepsis | 120 (0.1) | 39 (0.3) | < 0.001 |
| Cerebrovascular accident | 10 (0.01) | 3 (0.02) | 0.326 |
| Serious complications | 4240 (5.0) | 964 (7.2) | < 0.001 |
| Death | 85 (0.1) | 17 (0.1) | 0.385 |
P-RYGB, primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; SG-RYGB, sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
Postoperative Complications and Mortality
SG-RYGB patients had a higher rate of serious complications compared to P-RYGB (7.2 vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001). This was comprised of higher rates of anastomotic leak (0.5 vs. 0.4%, p = 0.002), bleeding (2.0 vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001), reoperation (3.0 vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001), non-operative interventions (2.2 vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001), deep surgical site infections (1.0 vs. 0.5%, p < 0.001), sepsis (0.3 vs. 0.1%, p < 0.001), and cerebrovascular accidents (0.02 vs. 0.01%, p = 0.326). However, 30-day mortality was similar between SG-RYGB and P-RYGB (0.1 vs. 0.1%, p = 0.385) (Table 2).
Multivariable Logistic Regression
Following adjustment with multivariable logistic regression, 16 variables were independently predictive of 30-day serious complications. Notably, indication for conversion was not significant on univariate or multivariable analysis. SG-RYGB was predictive of serious complications compared to P-RYGB (OR 1.21, 95%CI 1.12–1.32, p < 0.001) after adjusting for age, BMI, comorbidities, and operative time. The factors with the highest odds ratios (> 1.5) included partially dependent functional status, therapeutic anticoagulation, chronic kidney disease, and previous venous thromboembolism (Table 3). On multivariable analysis, SG-RYGB was not independently predictive of 30-day mortality (OR 1.34, 95%CI 0.76–2.35, p = 0.316, Table 4). This serious complication model had an AUROC of 0.60 and Brier score of 0.05 while the mortality model had an AUROC of 0.81 and Brier score of 0.001.
Table 3.
Significant risk factors for serious complications on multivariable logistic regression
| Risk factor | Adjusted odds ratio* | 95% confidence interval | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| SG-RYGB vs. P-RYGB | 1.21 | 1.12–1.32 | < 0.001 |
| Partially dependent functional status | 1.77 | 1.32–2.37 | < 0.001 |
| Therapeutic anticoagulation | 1.58 | 1.37–1.82 | < 0.001 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 1.53 | 1.13–2.08 | 0.006 |
| Previous venous thromboembolism | 1.49 | 1.29–1.72 | < 0.001 |
| Chronic steroids | 1.36 | 1.16–1.59 | < 0.001 |
| Previous percutaneous coronary intervention | 1.33 | 1.08–1.63 | 0.007 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 1.31 | 1.07–1.59 | 0.009 |
| Black race | 1.29 | 1.20–1.39 | < 0.001 |
| ASA class 4 or 5 | 1.29 | 1.10–1.51 | 0.002 |
| Previous cardiac surgery | 1.29 | 1.00–1.65 | 0.047 |
| Gastroesophageal reflux disease | 1.20 | 1.13–1.27 | < 0.001 |
| Longer operative time (per hour) | 1.15 | 1.13–1.19 | < 0.001 |
| Hypertension | 1.09 | 1.02–1.16 | 0.009 |
| Non-insulin dependent diabetes | 0.90 | 0.83–0.97 | 0.008 |
| Higher body mass index (per 10 kg/m2) | 0.89 | 0.86–0.93 | < 0.001 |
*Adjusted for age, hyperlipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, previous myocardial infarction, and dialysis-dependency
P-RYGB, primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; SG-RYGB, sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
Table 4.
Significant risk factors for mortality on multivariable logistic regression
| Risk factor | Adjusted odds ratio* | 95% confidence interval | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| SG-RYGB vs. P-RYGB | 1.34 | 0.76–2.35 | 0.316 |
| Partially dependent functional status | 4.70 | 2.04–10.8 | < 0.001 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 3.05 | 1.15–8.11 | 0.025 |
| Previous percutaneous coronary intervention | 2.50 | 1.17–5.36 | 0.018 |
| Gastroesophageal reflux disease | 1.52 | 1.00–2.32 | 0.049 |
| Longer operative time (per hour) | 1.22 | 1.04–1.43 | 0.013 |
| Older age (per year) | 1.06 | 1.04–1.09 | < 0.001 |
| Female sex | 0.53 | 0.34–0.84 | 0.007 |
*Adjusted for diabetes, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous venous thromboembolism, therapeutic anticoagulation, obstructive sleep apnea, previous myocardial infarction, and previous cardiac surgery
P-RYGB, primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; SG-RYGB, sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large-scale study analyzing the rate of serious complications and mortality of revisional sleeve to bypass compared to primary bypass. Using the MBSAQIP database, we found that while SG-RYGB has a higher risk of serious complication compared to P-RYGB, the overall rate of complications remained low at 7.2%, and mortality was not significantly different from P-RYGB after adjusting for comorbidities.
Revisional bariatric surgery has traditionally been associated with a higher rate of complications, compared with primary procedures [11, 12]. Scar tissue and extensive adhesions from the primary operation increase the complexity and operative time of the secondary surgery, leading to higher complication rates [13]. In a systematic review by Jones et al., revisional bariatric surgery carried a 14% major complication rate and 0.86% mortality rate [14]. A recent single-center study reported a complication rate of 10.8% for revisional RYGB and 5.9% for primary RYGB [15].
The debate over the safety profile of primary versus secondary bariatric surgeries, however, has taken a turn in recent years. A number of patients who underwent SG in the past decade, during which SG became the most popular bariatric surgery, now return for revisional surgery citing inadequate weight loss, GERD, or complications [16–19]. In North America, the revisional surgery of choice is most often RYGB. Given that a sleeve has already been created, it is thought that this potentially decreases the technical difficulty of creating the pouch. Additionally, patients who have a previous SG had a lower BMI and lower rates of comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obstructive sleep apnea, which may reduce rates of postoperative complications. Taken in balance with the increased complexity of lysing adhesions, the risk of complications and mortality may be lower than other types of revisional bariatric procedures.
Importantly, the most common indication for revision was GERD, which is consistent with current literature [15, 20–22]. A recent study highlighted that de novo GERD developed in 48% of patients during an 8.5-year follow-up time after laparoscopic SG [23]. The high prevalence of GERD after SG should be considered with the wide use of SG as a primary bariatric procedure which accounted for 53.6% of worldwide bariatric procedures, rather than RYGB which accounted for only 30.1% [24]. A meta-analysis demonstrated that laparoscopic RYGB had a lower incidence of new onset GERD and was more effective for treating GERD in patients with obesity, compared to laparoscopic SG [25]. Given the effective management of GERD with RYGB and the higher risk of serious complications if done as a revisional procedure after SG, our study further suggests that primary RYGB is indicated for patients with GERD.
Multivariable analysis revealed that a key predictor of serious complications was SG-RYGB, compared to P-RYGB, which agrees with previous studies [26, 27]. Specifically, SG-RYGB carried higher rates of postoperative bleeding, reoperation, non-operative intervention, readmission, deep surgical site infection, and sepsis. However, in comparing mortality rates, SG-RYGB and P-RYGB were not significantly different. Clinicians and patients should consider the heightened risk of serious complications when electing revisional bariatric surgery after primary SG.
There was a higher representation of female and Black patients in the SG-RYGB cohort compared to P-RYGB. This may be related to lower weight loss outcomes in women [28] and Black patients [29] after SG which increases the need for revisional bariatric surgery. In our multivariable analysis, Black race was also an independent risk factor for complications with SG-RYGB. This was consistent with findings from Mocanu et al. which also demonstrated that Black race had higher rates of complications in primary bariatric surgery, although the etiology remains unclear [30].
Although RYGB is presently the most popular revisional surgery, other procedures may offer better weight loss outcomes. Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS) and single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass (SADI-S) are two options after SG. BPD-DS and SADI-S have been touted to have better weight loss outcomes, which is important for patients who elect revisional surgery for inadequate weight loss or weight recurrence. A recent single-center study demonstrated that revisional BPD-DS after SG yielded greater weight loss compared to SG-RYGB with no difference in long-term complications [31]. Similarly, conversion from SG to SADI-S led to significantly more total body weight loss than conversion to RYGB. This study also found no difference in quality of life scores, complication rates, or micronutrient deficiencies [32]. However, performing distal RYGB with longer biliopancreatic limbs may be equivalent to BPD-DS or SADI-S [33, 34]. While most patients today receive RYGB after failed SG, these findings suggest that the decision-making of revisional procedures may be more nuanced. The type of revision depends on whether patients present with symptoms of GERD, in which RYGB is strongly indicated, or weight loss failure, in which RYGB, BPD-DS, and SADI-S are reasonable options.
There are limitations to consider in this study. Data was only available for 30 days, and long-term complications were not captured. The MBSAQIP database does not capture certain comorbidities, such as liver disease and heart failure, and does not include data on the severity of comorbidities. Verhoeff et al. demonstrated that patients undergoing bariatric surgery during COVID-19 years were younger and had less comorbidities [35], and there may be selection bias towards healthier patients in our data which was during the pandemic period. In addition, the wide heterogeneity in surgeon experience and technique could not be captured. Importantly, data on the number of revisions before the revisional RYGB and time between primary SG and conversion to RYGB was unavailable. This missing data could influence our findings, as an increased number of revisional surgeries may increase the technical difficulty of RYGB and lead to more postoperative complications.
Despite these limitations, our study is the first to compare rates of serious complications and mortality of SG-RYGB with P-RYGB on a large scale and presents the largest study to date which characterizes indications for revision after previous SG. A comparison of these two populations is not well-highlighted in current literature, despite both primary and revisional RYGB being popular bariatric procedures. As more patients require revisional surgery after complications and failure to lose weight following SG, the need to understand the risks of revisional RYGB after SG becomes increasingly important. Future studies should investigate risk factors associated with long-term complications of RYGB and compare the rates of serious complications between other revisional procedures after SG, to help determine the optimal revisional surgery based on individual patient profiles.
Conclusions
The most common indications for revision from SG to RYGB were GERD followed by weight recurrence and inadequate weight loss. Although revisional RYGB after SG is associated with a higher rate of serious complications than primary RYGB, the overall complication rate is low at 7.2% with no significant difference in 30-day mortality. These findings demonstrate that conversion to RYGB is safe, and clinicians and patients should consider associated risk factors for serious complications when choosing bariatric procedures.
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available in in MBSAQIP participant use file at https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/accreditation-and-verification/metabolic-and-bariatricsurgery-accreditation-and-quality-improvement-program/participant-use-data-file-puf/.
Declarations
Consent to Participate
For this type of study, formal consent is not required. Informed consent does not apply.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Key Points
• Conversion from sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (SG-RYGB) was compared to primary RYGB (P-RYGB).
• Main indications for revision were reflux (55.3%), weight recurrence (24.4%), and inadequate weight loss (12.7%).
• SG-RYGB had a higher rate of serious complications than P-RYGB (7.2 vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001).
• Mortality was rare and not different between SG-RYGB and P-RYGB (0.1 vs. 0.1%, p = 0.385).
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Jerry T. Dang, Email: dangj3@ccf.org
Tiffany Vaughan, Email: twd13@case.edu.
Valentin Mocanu, Email: vmocanu@ualberta.ca.
Hadika Mubashir, Email: hadikamubashir@gmail.com.
Juan S. Barajas-Gamboa, Email: BarajaJ@ClevelandClinicAbuDhabi.ae
Ricard Corcelles Codina, Email: corcelr@ccf.org.
John Rodriguez, Email: RodrigJ2@ClevelandClinicAbuDhabi.ae.
Shahzeer Karmali, Email: shahzeer@ualberta.ca.
Matthew Kroh, Email: krohm@ccf.org.
References
- 1.Lee JH, Nguyen QN, Le QA. Comparative effectiveness of 3 bariatric surgery procedures: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, and sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12:997–1002. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2016.01.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Grönroos S, Helmiö M, Juuti A, Tiusanen R, Hurme S, Löyttyniemi E, et al. Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss and quality of life at 7 years in patients with morbid obesity: the SLEEVEPASS randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg Am Med Assoc. 2021;156:137–146. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.5666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kheirvari M, DadkhahNikroo N, Jaafarinejad H, Farsimadan M, Eshghjoo S, Hosseini S, et al. The advantages and disadvantages of sleeve gastrectomy; clinical laboratory to bedside review. Heliyon. 2020;6:034. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Casillas RA, Um SS, Zelada Getty JL, Sachs S, Kim BB. Revision of primary sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: indications and outcomes from a high-volume center. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12:1817–25. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2016.09.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Landreneau JP, Strong AT, Rodriguez JH, Aleassa EM, Aminian A, Brethauer S, et al. Conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2018;28:3843–50 . doi: 10.1007/s11695-018-3435-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Barajas-Gamboa JS, Landreneau J, Abril C, Raza J, Corcelles R, Kroh M. Conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for complications: outcomes from a tertiary referral center in the Middle East. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019;15:1690–5 . doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2019.07.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, Ramos A, Shikora S, Kow L. Bariatric surgery survey 2018: similarities and disparities among the 5 IFSO chapters. Obes Surg. 2021;31:1937–1948. doi: 10.1007/s11695-020-05207-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Park JY, Song D, Kim YJ. Causes and outcomes of revisional bariatric surgery: initial experience at a single center. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2014;86:295–301. doi: 10.4174/astr.2014.86.6.295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Pędziwiatr M, Małczak P, Wierdak M, Rubinkiewicz M, Pisarska M, Major P, et al. Revisional gastric bypass is inferior to primary gastric bypass in terms of short-and long-term outcomes—systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2018;28:2083–2091. doi: 10.1007/s11695-018-3300-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.StataCorp, Stata Statistical Software. TX: StataCorp LP, College Station; 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Himpens J, Coromina L, Verbrugghe A, Cadière GB. Outcomes of revisional procedures for insufficient weight loss or weight regain after Roux-En-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2012;22:1746–1754 . doi: 10.1007/s11695-012-0728-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Nesset EM, Kendrick ML, Houghton SG, Mai JL, Thompson GB, Que FG, et al. A two-decade spectrum of revisional bariatric surgery at a tertiary referral center. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007;3:25–30. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2006.10.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Stefanidis D, Malireddy K, Kuwada T, Phillips R, Zoog E, Gersin KS. Revisional bariatric surgery: perioperative morbidity is determined by type of procedure. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:4504–10 . doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3097-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Jones KB. Revisional bariatric surgery-potentially safe and effective. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2005;1:599–603. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2005.08.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Abdulrazzaq S, Elhag W, El AW, Mohammad AS, Sargsyan D, Bashah M. Is revisional gastric bypass as effective as primary gastric bypass for weight loss and improvement of comorbidities? Obes Surg. 2020;30:1219–1229. doi: 10.1007/s11695-019-04280-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Felsenreich DM, Artemiou E, Steinlechner K, Vock N, Jedamzik J, Eichelter J, et al. Fifteen years after sleeve gastrectomy: weight loss, remission of associated medical problems, quality of life, and conversions to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass—long-term follow-up in a multicenter study. Obes Surg. 2021;31:3453 . doi: 10.1007/s11695-021-05475-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Cheung D, Switzer NJ, Gill RS, Shi X, Karmali S. Revisional bariatric surgery following failed primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review. Obes Surg. 2014;24:1757–63. doi: 10.1007/s11695-014-1332-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Bohdjalian A, Langer FB, Shakeri-Leidenmühler S, Gfrerer L, Ludvik B, Zacherl J, et al. Sleeve gastrectomy as sole and definitive bariatric procedure: 5-year results for weight loss and ghrelin. Obes Surg. 2010;20:535–40. doi: 10.1007/s11695-009-0066-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Aarts EO, Mahawar K. From the knife to the endoscope-a history of bariatric surgery. Curr Obes Rep. 2020;9:348–363 . doi: 10.1007/s13679-020-00382-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Lazoura O, Zacharoulis D, Triantafyllidis G, Fanariotis M, Sioka E, Papamargaritis D, et al. Symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy are related to the final shape of the sleeve as depicted by radiology. Obes Surg. 2011;21:295–299. doi: 10.1007/s11695-010-0339-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Parmar CD, Mahawar KK, Boyle M, Schroeder N, Balupuri S, Small PK. Conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is effective for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease but not for further weight loss. Obes Surg. 2017;27:1651–1658. doi: 10.1007/s11695-017-2542-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Diaz G, Gobbo D, Mahmoud N, Barajas-Gamboa JS, Klingler M, Barrios P, et al. Conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to enhance weight loss: single enterprise mid-term outcomes and literature review. Bariatr Surg Pract Patient Care. 2022;17(4):197–205 (Mary Ann Liebert). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 23.Mandeville Y, Van LR, Vancoillie PJ, Verbeke X, Vandendriessche K, Vuylsteke P, et al. Moderating the enthusiasm of sleeve gastrectomy: up to fifty percent of reflux symptoms after ten years in a consecutive series of one hundred laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies. Obes Surg. 2017;27:1797–1803. doi: 10.1007/s11695-017-2567-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Santonicola AL, Iovino A, Vitiello P, Higa A, Himpens KJ, et al. IFSO worldwide survey 2016: primary, endoluminal, and revisional procedures. Obes Surg. 2018;28:3783–3794 (Springer). [DOI] [PubMed]
- 25.Gu L, Chen B, Du N, Fu R, Huang X, Mao F, et al. Relationship between bariatric surgery and gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2019;29:4105–4113. doi: 10.1007/s11695-019-04218-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Zhang L, Tan WH, Chang R, Eagon JC. Perioperative risk and complications of revisional bariatric surgery compared to primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:1316–20 . doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3848-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Owens BM, Owens ML, Hill CW. Effect of revisional bariatric surgery on weight loss and frequency of complications. Obes Surg. 1996;6:479–484. doi: 10.1381/096089296765556377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Perrone F, Bianciardi E, Benavoli D, Tognoni V, Niolu C, Siracusano A, et al. Gender influence on long-term weight loss and comorbidities after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a prospective study with a 5-year follow-up. Obes Surg. 2016;26:276–281. doi: 10.1007/s11695-015-1746-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Zhao J, Samaan JS, Abboud Y, Samakar K. Racial disparities in bariatric surgery postoperative weight loss and co-morbidity resolution: a systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2021;17:1799–823. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2021.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Mocanu V, Dang JT, Switzer N, Madsen K, Birch DW, Karmali S. Sex and race predict adverse outcomes following bariatric surgery: an MBSAQIP analysis. Obes Surg. 2020;30:1093–1101. doi: 10.1007/s11695-020-04395-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Andalib A, Alamri H, Almuhanna Y, Bouchard P, Demyttenaere S, Court O. Short-term outcomes of revisional surgery after sleeve gastrectomy: a comparative analysis of re-sleeve, Roux en-Y gastric bypass, duodenal switch (Roux en-Y and single-anastomosis) Surg Endosc. 2021;35:4644–4652. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07891-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Dijkhorst PJ, Al Nawas M, Heusschen L, Hazebroek EJ, Swank DJ, Wiezer RMJ, et al. Single anastomosis duodenoileal bypass or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after failed sleeve gastrectomy: medium-term outcomes. Obes Surg. 2021;31:4708–16. doi: 10.1007/s11695-021-05609-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Tran DD, Nwokeabia ID, Purnell S, Zafar SN, Ortega G, Hughes K, et al. Revision of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for weight regain: a systematic review of techniques and outcomes. Obes Surg. 2016;26:1627–34. doi: 10.1007/s11695-016-2201-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Shin RD, Goldberg MB, Shafran AS, Shikora SA, Majumdar MC, Shikora SA. Revision of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with limb distalization for inadequate weight loss or weight regain. Obes Surg. 2019;29:811–8 . doi: 10.1007/s11695-018-03635-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Verhoeff K, Mocanu V, Dang J, Wilson H, Switzer NJ, Birch DW, et al. Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on bariatric surgery in North America: a retrospective analysis of 834,647 patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2022;18:803–11. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2022.03.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available in in MBSAQIP participant use file at https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/accreditation-and-verification/metabolic-and-bariatricsurgery-accreditation-and-quality-improvement-program/participant-use-data-file-puf/.