Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34476726›Full record

Trial reportObesity surgery2021

Midterm Results from the Dutch Common Channel Trial (DUCATI): Superior Weight Loss Results of the Long Roux Limb Gastric Bypass in Comparison to the Standard Bypass at 3-Year Follow-Up.

Ralph P M Gadiot, L Ulas Biter, Pierre G Feskens, Martin Dunkelgrun, Jan A Apers, Gerhard van 't Hof, Guido H H Mannaerts

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Obesity surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ralph P M GadiotDepartment of Surgery, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Kleiweg 500, Rotterdam, 3045 PM, the Netherlands. ralph_gadiot@yahoo.com.
L Ulas BiterDepartment of Surgery, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Kleiweg 500, Rotterdam, 3045 PM, the Netherlands.
Pierre G FeskensDepartment of Bariatric Surgery, Bariatric Center South-West Netherlands, Bravis Hospital, Bergen op Zoom, the Netherlands.
Martin DunkelgrunDepartment of Surgery, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Kleiweg 500, Rotterdam, 3045 PM, the Netherlands.
Jan A ApersDepartment of Surgery, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Kleiweg 500, Rotterdam, 3045 PM, the Netherlands.
Gerhard van 't HofDepartment of Bariatric Surgery, Bariatric Center South-West Netherlands, Bravis Hospital, Bergen op Zoom, the Netherlands.
Guido H H MannaertsDepartment of Surgery, Tawam Hospital, Al Ain Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Sint Franciscus Gasthuis · NLBravis Ziekenhuis · NLTawam Hospital · AE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the multi-center Dutch Common Channel Trial (DUCATI), a very long Roux limb Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (VLRL-RYGB: BP-limb 60 cm, Roux limb variable, and common channel 100 cm) was compared to a standard Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (S-LRYGB: BP-limb 60 cm, Roux limb 150 cm, and common channel variable) in the treatment of morbidly obese patients. As all trial patients are beyond 3-year follow-up a midterm analysis was performed to investigate the effect of the VLRL-RYGB.

methodsA total of 444 patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either a VLRL-RYGB or a S-LRYGB. Follow-up results for weight loss, effect on obesity-related comorbid conditions, complications, reoperation, and malnutrition are investigated.

resultsAt 3-year follow-up a significant difference in %TWL (34.0% vs. 31.4%, p = 0.017) and %EWL (84.7% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.043) was observed in favor of VLRL-LRYGB group. Overall complication rate 3-years after surgery was 15.8% in the VLRL-LRYGB group vs. 9% in the S-LRYGB group (p = 0.031). Eight (3.6%) patients in the VLRL-LRYGB group versus 2 (0.9%) in the S-LRYGB group (p = 0.055) required revisional surgery for malabsorption. In the VLRL-LRYGB group 71.9% of patients had resolution of T2DM versus 48.9% in the S-LRYGB group (p = 0.044).

conclusionAt midterm FU a considerable, significantly increased effect on weight loss of the VLRL-LRYGB was observed compared to the S-LRYGB, with a higher risk of overall complications, but no significant nutritional side effects. These results might impact the current view on the value of the Roux limb in the discussion on optimum limb lengths in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery.

Indexed as

Gastric BypassLaparoscopyObesity, MorbidFollow-Up StudiesHumansReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeWeight LossCommon ChannelGastric bypassLimb Lengths; Weight loss

Identifiers

PMID34476726
OpenAlexW3198516766

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.