↓ Skip to main content

Endoscopic gastrojejunostomy revision is more effective than medical management alone to address weight regain after RYGB

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Endoscopic gastrojejunostomy revision is more effective than medical management alone to address weight regain after RYGB
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00464-018-6073-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. Mason Hedberg, Alexander Trenk, Kristine Kuchta, John G. Linn, JoAnn Carbray, Michael B. Ujiki

Abstract

Weight regain after bariatric roux-en-y gastric bypass affects up to 30% of individuals. Revisional surgery is risky, and is typically avoided in favor of dietary and psychological management. Endoscopic gastrojejunostomy revision is a low-morbidity, outpatient procedure that may be more effective than medical management alone for regain after gastric bypass. Two patient cohorts were retrospectively assembled. Both groups had gastric bypass, regained weight, and were cleared for revision by their surgeon, dietician, and psychologist. The revision group underwent the procedure, and the no-revision group did not, typically due to insurance issues. Weights from pre-bypass to 2 years post-revision, obesity-related comorbidities, and intraoperative factors were collected and analyzed. There were 41 patients included in the revision group and 14 in the no-revision group. Up to the time of revision procedure, body mass index, and % excess weight loss between groups were similar. After revision, the groups diverged over a 2-year period, with improvement seen in the revision group and worsening in the no-revision group. The revision group showed overall improvement in comorbidities compared to the no-revision group. Analysis of intraoperative factors suggests that gastric pouch restriction in addition to stoma diameter reduction may promote weight loss. In this retrospective study, endoscopic revision provided significantly greater weight loss compared to medical management alone. Results show that revision can help resolve obesity-related comorbidities. Analysis of intraoperative factors suggests that pouch reduction at time of stoma revision may improve weight loss.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 20%
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Student > Master 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 44%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,732,186
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#524
of 6,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,708
of 441,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#28
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,110 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,268 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.