Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31865551›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2020

Is Revisional Gastric Bypass as Effective as Primary Gastric Bypass for Weight Loss and Improvement of Comorbidities?

Sama Abdulrazzaq, Wahiba Elhag, Walid El Ansari, Amjad Salah Mohammad, Davit Sargsyan, Moataz Bashah

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sama AbdulrazzaqDepartment of Bariatric Surgery/Bariatric Medicine, Hamad General Hospital, 3050, Doha, Qatar.
Wahiba ElhagDepartment of Bariatric Surgery/Bariatric Medicine, Hamad General Hospital, 3050, Doha, Qatar.
Walid El AnsariDepartment of Surgery, Hamad General Hospital, 3050, Doha, Qatar. welansari9@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0961-1302
Amjad Salah MohammadDepartments of General Surgery, Hamad General Hospital, 3050, Doha, Qatar.
Davit SargsyanDepartment of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Hamad General Hospital, 3050, Doha, Qatar.
Moataz BashahDepartment of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Hamad General Hospital, 3050, Doha, Qatar.
Hamad General Hospital · QAUniversity of Skövde · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRevisional gastric bypass (R-RYGB) surgery is utilized for the management of inadequate weight loss or weight regain observed after some cases of bariatric surgeries. Data on the mid-term effectiveness of primary gastric bypass (P-RYGB) compared with R-RYGB (e.g., post sleeve gastrectomy/gastric banding) are controversial.

methodsRetrospective chart review of all patients who received P-RYGB and R-RYGB (January 2011-June 2015) at our center. One hundred twenty patients who underwent P-RYGB and 34 R-RYGB who completed 18 months follow-up were included. We compared the effectiveness of P-RYGB with R-RYGB by assessing four anthropometric, two glycemic, and four lipid parameters, as well as the control of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), hypertension, dyslipidemia (remission, improvement, persistence, relapse, de novo), mortality and complications rates.

resultsA comparison of the effectiveness of P-RYGB with R-RYGB at 18 months revealed no significant differences in patients' age, gender, and preoperative BMI between groups. However, patients who received P-RYGB had lower mean weight (P = 0.001) and BMI (P < 0.001), reflected by a higher mean delta BMI (P = 0.02), total weight loss percentage (TWL%) (P < 0.0001) and excess weight loss percentage (EWL%) (P < 0.0001). No differences in glycemic parameters, lipid profiles, control of T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia were observed. No death is reported and complication rates were comparable.

conclusionsAlthough R-RYGB effectively addressed inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and recurrence of comorbidities after restrictive bariatric surgery, R-RYGB resulted in inferior weight loss compared with P-RYGB. Neither procedure differed in their clinical control of T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Both procedures exhibited comparable complication rates.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Gastric BypassLaparoscopyObesity, MorbidGastrectomyHumansReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeWeight LossDyslipidemiaHypertensionPrimary gastric bypassRevisional gastric bypassType 2 diabetesWeight loss outcome

Identifiers

PMID31865551
OpenAlexW2995874234

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.