Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29616464›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2018

Practices Concerning Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a Survey of 460 Surgeons.

Kamal K Mahawar, Abdelrahman Nimeri, Marco Adamo, Cynthia-Michelle Borg, Rishi Singhal, Omar Khan, Peter K Small

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Challenges in the care and treatment of patients with extreme obesity.Archives of endocrinology and metabolism · 2024
    Review
  10. Revisional bariatric procedures in the group of patients over 60 years of age: a multicenter cohort study (PROSS Study).Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Kamal K MahawarBariatric Unit, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland, SR4 7TP, UK. kamal_mahawar@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2551-3462
Abdelrahman NimeriSheikh Khalifa Medical City, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Marco AdamoUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK.
Cynthia-Michelle BorgLewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, University Hospital Lewisham, London, UK.
Rishi SinghalBirmingham Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Omar KhanSt. Georges Hospital, London, UK.
Peter K SmallBariatric Unit, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland, SR4 7TP, UK.
Sunderland Royal Hospital · GBHeartlands Hospital · GBShaikh Khalifa Medical City · AESt George's Hospital · GBUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospital Lewisham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is currently little evidence available on various aspects of Revisional Bariatric Surgery (RBS) and no published consensus amongst experts. The purpose of this study was to understand variation in practices concerning RBS.

methodsBariatric surgeons from around the world who perform RBS were invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey on SurveyMonkey®.

resultsA total of 460 respondents from 62 countries took the survey. For revision after gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (75.5%, n = 345) emerged as the commonest choice followed by sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (56.9%, n = 260) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) (37.2%, n = 170). For revision after SG, RYGB (77.7%, n = 355) was the commonest option followed by OAGB (42.45%, n = 194) and re-sleeve (22.32%, n = 102). For revision after RYGB, surgical pouch reduction (49.1%, n = 223), prolongation of bilio-pancreatic limb (30.0%, n = 136), and surgical stoma size reduction (26.43%, n = 120) were the most preferred options. Approximately 90.0% of respondents (n = 406/454) routinely perform an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy before an RBS, and 85.6% (n = 388/453) routinely perform a contrast study. Ninety percent (n = 403/445) reported that the demand for RBS was usually patient-driven, and there was wide variation in criteria used to define successful response, non-responders, and significant weight regain.

conclusionsThis survey is the first attempt to understand various aspects of RBS. The findings will help in identifying areas for research and allow consensus building amongst experts.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryReoperationHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'SurgeonsSurveys and QuestionnairesGastric bandingOne anastomosis gastric bypassRevisional bariatric surgeryRoux-en-Y gastric bypassSleeve gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID29616464
OpenAlexW2796211558

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.