Suppr超能文献

胃旁路术后翻修袖状胃切除术与胃束带术失败后胃旁路术安全性的比较:MBSAQIP 分析。

Safety of Revision Sleeve Gastrectomy Compared to Roux-Y Gastric Bypass After Failed Gastric Banding: Analysis of the MBSAQIP.

机构信息

University Hospital Cleveland Medical Center/Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Department of General, Oncologic, Metabolic and Thoracic Surgery, Military Institute of Medicine, Warszawa, Poland.

出版信息

Ann Surg. 2019 Feb;269(2):299-303. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002559.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the safety of revisional surgery to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) compared to laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB).

BACKGROUND

The number of reoperations after failed gastric banding rapidly increased in the United States during the last several years. A common approach is band removal with conversion to another weight loss procedure such as gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in a single procedure. The safety profile of those procedures remains controversial.

METHODS

Preoperative characteristics and 30-day outcomes from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Files 2015 were selected for all patients who underwent a 1-stage conversion of LAGB to LSG (conv-LSG) or LRYGB (conv-LRYGB). Conv-LSG cases were matched (1:1) with conv-LRYGB patients by age (±1 year), body mass index (±1 kg/m(2)), sex, and comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, venous stasis, and sleep apnea.

RESULTS

A total of 2708 patients (1354 matched pairs) were included in the study. The groups were closely matched as intended. The mean operative time in conv-LRYGB was significantly longer in comparison to conv-LSG patients (151 ± 58 vs 113 ± 45 minutes, P < 0.001). No mortality was observed in either group. Patients after conv-LRYGB had a clinically increased anastomotic leakage rate (2.07% vs 1.18%, P = 0.070) and significantly increased bleed rate (2.66% vs 0.44%, P < 0.001). Thirty-day readmission rate was significantly higher in conv-LRYGB patients (7.46% vs 3.69%, P < 0.001), as was 30-day reoperation rate (3.25% vs 1.26%, P < 0.001). The length of hospital stay was longer in conv-LRYGB.

CONCLUSIONS

A single-stage conversion of failed LAGB leads to greater morbidity and higher complication rates when converted to LRYGB versus LSG in the first 30 days postoperatively. These differences are particularly notable with regards to bleed events, 30-day reoperation, 30-day readmission, operative time, and hospital stay.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估腹腔镜袖状胃切除术(LSG)与腹腔镜 Roux-en-Y 胃旁路术(LRYGB)治疗腹腔镜可调胃束带术(LAGB)失败后的安全性。

背景

近年来,美国胃带修复手术后的再手术数量迅速增加。一种常见的方法是在一次手术中取出束带,并将其转换为另一种减肥手术,如胃旁路术或袖状胃切除术。这些手术的安全性仍存在争议。

方法

从代谢和减肥手术认证和质量改进计划参与者使用文件 2015 中选择所有接受 LAGB 一期转换为 LSG(conv-LSG)或 LRYGB(conv-LRYGB)的患者的术前特征和 30 天结果。通过年龄(±1 岁)、体重指数(±1kg/m2)、性别以及糖尿病、高血压、高血脂、静脉淤滞和睡眠呼吸暂停等合并症对 conv-LSG 病例进行了(1:1)与 conv-LRYGB 患者匹配。

结果

共有 2708 例患者(1354 对匹配)纳入研究。两组按计划匹配良好。与 conv-LSG 患者相比,conv-LRYGB 患者的手术时间明显更长(151±58 分钟 vs 113±45 分钟,P<0.001)。两组均未发生死亡。与 conv-LSG 患者相比,conv-LRYGB 患者的吻合口漏诊率(2.07% vs 1.18%,P=0.070)和出血率(2.66% vs 0.44%,P<0.001)均有临床升高。conv-LRYGB 患者的 30 天再入院率(7.46% vs 3.69%,P<0.001)和 30 天再手术率(3.25% vs 1.26%,P<0.001)均较高。conv-LRYGB 患者的住院时间较长。

结论

与 LSG 相比,LAGB 失败后一期转换为 LRYGB 可导致术后 30 天内出现更高的发病率和更高的并发症发生率。在出血事件、30 天内再次手术、30 天内再入院、手术时间和住院时间方面,这些差异尤为显著。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验