↓ Skip to main content

Revision of Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass for Weight Regain: a Systematic Review of Techniques and Outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Obesity Surgery, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 Mendeley
Title
Revision of Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass for Weight Regain: a Systematic Review of Techniques and Outcomes
Published in
Obesity Surgery, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11695-016-2201-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel D. Tran, Ifeanyi D. Nwokeabia, Stephanie Purnell, Syed Nabeel Zafar, Gezzer Ortega, Kakra Hughes, Terrence M. Fullum

Abstract

Weight regain has led to an increase in revision of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgeries. There is no standardized approach to revisional surgery after failed RYGB. We performed an exhaustive literature search to elucidate surgical revision options. Our objective was to evaluate outcomes and complications of various methods of revision after RYGB to identify the option with the best outcomes for failed primary RYGB. A systematic literature search was conducted using the following search tools and databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database, Cochrane Review Database, EMBASE, and Allied and Complementary Medicine to identify all relevant studies describing revision after failed RYGB. Inclusion criteria comprised of revisional surgery for weight gain after RYGB. Of the 1200 articles found, only 799 were selected for our study. Of the 799, 24 studies, with a total of 866 patients, were included for a systematic review. Of the 24 studies, 5 were conversion to Distal Roux-en-y gastric bypass (DRYGB), 5 were revision of gastric pouch and anastomosis, 6 were revision with gastric band, 2 were revision to biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS), and 6 were revision to endoluminal procedures (i.e., stomaphyx). Mean percent excess body mass index loss (%EBMIL) after revision up to 1 and 3-year follow-up for BPD/DS was 63.7 and 76 %, DRYGB was 54 and 52.2 %, gastric banding revision 47.6 and 47.3 %, gastric pouch/anastomosis revision 43.3 and 14 %, and endoluminal procedures at 32.1 %, respectively. Gastric pouch/anastomosis revision resulted in the lowest major complication rate at 3.5 % and DRYGB with the highest at 11.9 % when compared to the other revisional procedures. The mortality rate was 0.6 % which only occurred in the DRYGB group. All 866 patients in the 24 studies reported significant early initial weight loss after revision for failed RYGB. However, of the five surgical revision options considered, BPD/DS, DRYGB, and gastric banding resulted in sustained weight loss, with acceptable complication rate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 165 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 13%
Other 16 10%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Other 38 23%
Unknown 48 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Unspecified 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Psychology 2 1%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 56 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,371,100
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Obesity Surgery
#2,064
of 3,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,976
of 298,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obesity Surgery
#45
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,375 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 298,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.