Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27138603›Full record

SynthesisObesity surgery2016

Revision of Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass for Weight Regain: a Systematic Review of Techniques and Outcomes.

Daniel D Tran, Ifeanyi D Nwokeabia, Stephanie Purnell, Syed Nabeel Zafar, Gezzer Ortega, Kakra Hughes, Terrence M Fullum

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Obesity surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
13.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

77 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 174 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel D TranDepartment of Surgery, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. daniel.tran@howard.edu.
Ifeanyi D NwokeabiaHoward University College of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Stephanie PurnellHoward University College of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Syed Nabeel ZafarDepartment of Surgery, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Gezzer OrtegaDepartment of Surgery, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Kakra HughesDepartment of Surgery, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Terrence M FullumDepartment of Surgery, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Howard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeight regain has led to an increase in revision of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgeries. There is no standardized approach to revisional surgery after failed RYGB. We performed an exhaustive literature search to elucidate surgical revision options. Our objective was to evaluate outcomes and complications of various methods of revision after RYGB to identify the option with the best outcomes for failed primary RYGB.

methodA systematic literature search was conducted using the following search tools and databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database, Cochrane Review Database, EMBASE, and Allied and Complementary Medicine to identify all relevant studies describing revision after failed RYGB. Inclusion criteria comprised of revisional surgery for weight gain after RYGB.

resultsOf the 1200 articles found, only 799 were selected for our study. Of the 799, 24 studies, with a total of 866 patients, were included for a systematic review. Of the 24 studies, 5 were conversion to Distal Roux-en-y gastric bypass (DRYGB), 5 were revision of gastric pouch and anastomosis, 6 were revision with gastric band, 2 were revision to biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS), and 6 were revision to endoluminal procedures (i.e., stomaphyx). Mean percent excess body mass index loss (%EBMIL) after revision up to 1 and 3-year follow-up for BPD/DS was 63.7 and 76 %, DRYGB was 54 and 52.2 %, gastric banding revision 47.6 and 47.3 %, gastric pouch/anastomosis revision 43.3 and 14 %, and endoluminal procedures at 32.1 %, respectively. Gastric pouch/anastomosis revision resulted in the lowest major complication rate at 3.5 % and DRYGB with the highest at 11.9 % when compared to the other revisional procedures. The mortality rate was 0.6 % which only occurred in the DRYGB group.

conclusionAll 866 patients in the 24 studies reported significant early initial weight loss after revision for failed RYGB. However, of the five surgical revision options considered, BPD/DS, DRYGB, and gastric banding resulted in sustained weight loss, with acceptable complication rate.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexGastric BypassHumansObesity, MorbidReoperationStomachWeight GainBariatric surgeryConversionGastric bypassRevisionRoux-en-YWeight gainWeight recidivismWeight regain

Identifiers

PMID27138603
OpenAlexW2346294557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.