Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28493043›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2017

Revisional Surgery After Failed Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Retrospective Analysis of Causes, Results, and Technical Considerations.

Huseyin Yilmaz, Ilhan Ece, Mustafa Sahin

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Annals of translational medicine · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Huseyin YilmazDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Selcuk University, 42075, Konya, Turkey.
Ilhan EceDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Selcuk University, 42075, Konya, Turkey. ilhanece@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6966-7036
Mustafa SahinDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Selcuk University, 42075, Konya, Turkey.
Selçuk University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) presents a challenging problem for bariatric surgeons. The aim of this study was to evaluate the indications, treatment strategies, and surgical outcomes of patients who underwent a revisional surgery after a failed LSG.

methodsThis retrospective study included the outcomes of 32 patients who required a revisional surgery from a series of 500 primary LSGs. The patients' demographic data, indications for revisional surgery, perioperative complications, and postoperative outcomes were recorded.

resultsA total of 500 patients underwent primary LSGs during the study period, and 32 of these patients were subjected to revisional bariatric surgery after a failed LSG. Weight regain, poor weight loss, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were the most common causes of revision. A revisional LSG (r-LSG) was performed in 23 patients, while 9 patients received a revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (r-LRYGB). There were complete sleeve pouch dilations in 10 patients. A residual fundus and antrum dilation was detected in 5 and 8 patients, respectively. The r-LRYGB procedure was performed for GERD-related symptoms in 6 patients and 3 other patients underwent r-LRYGB due to the intake of high-caloric foods. The mean operative time, length of hospital stay, and complication rates of revisional surgeries were significantly higher than the total cohort.

conclusionsAlthough r-LSG and r-LRYGB seem to be safe and effective treatment options after a failed LSG, revisional procedures were associated with an increased complication rate. Attention to technical details of the primary LSG may reduce the revision requirements.

Indexed as

AdultBariatric SurgeryFemaleGastrectomyGastric BypassGastroplastyHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedObesity, MorbidOperative TimePostoperative PeriodReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeFailure bariatric surgeryRevisional surgerySleeve gastrectomyWeight regain

Identifiers

PMID28493043
OpenAlexW2613285226

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.