ArticleHealth science reports2026
Clinical Outcomes, Risks, and Individualized Treatment Selection in Revisional Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: A Narrative Review.
Article in Health science reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: As the use of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) expands, clinicians increasingly encounter weight recurrence, suboptimal response, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), nutritional problems, and procedure-related complications. Revisional metabolic and bariatric surgery (RMBS) offers several corrective and conversion strategies, but outcomes vary by indication, prior anatomy, procedure, and patient characteristics. This narrative review summarizes current evidence on the benefits, risks, and clinical determinants of RMBS. Methods: Evidence on indications, procedure selection, weight-related and metabolic outcomes, GERD, complications, nutritional consequences, reoperation, mortality, and patient-reported outcomes was narratively synthesized. Greater emphasis was placed on systematic reviews, meta-analyses, comparative studies, registry analyses, and contemporary consensus guidance. Results: RMBS can provide additional weight reduction, improve selected obesity-related comorbidities, and address complications of previous surgery. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is particularly relevant when GERD is a major indication after sleeve gastrectomy, whereas more malabsorptive procedures may provide greater weight-related benefit in selected patients at the cost of greater nutritional surveillance. Outcomes are influenced by the indication for revision, existing anatomy, nutritional and metabolic status, prior procedures, and procedural complexity. Quality of life improvement is possible but remains inconsistently reported. Pharmacological and endoscopic therapies may also serve as alternatives or adjuncts in selected patients with weight recurrence or suboptimal response. Conclusion: RMBS should be individualized rather than approached as a uniform treatment. Optimal management requires matching the intervention to the underlying indication, balancing expected benefits against procedural and nutritional risks, and providing multidisciplinary long-term follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.