Faculty of Health and Medicine, Örebro University, Campus USÖ, 701 82, Örebro, Sweden.
Department of Surgery, Torsby Hospital, Box 502, 685 29, Torsby, Sweden.
Obes Surg. 2023 Oct;33(10):2973-2980. doi: 10.1007/s11695-023-06783-0. Epub 2023 Aug 16.
Revisional surgery is a second-line treatment option after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric bypass (GBP) in patients with primary or secondary non-response. The aim was to analyze the theoretical need for revisional surgery after SG and GBP when applying four indication benchmarks.
Based on data from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry, SG and GBP were compared regarding four endpoints: 1. excess weight loss (%EWL) < 50%, 2. weight regain of more than 10 kg after nadir, 3. fulfillment of previous IFSO-guidelines, or 4. ADA criteria for bariatric metabolic surgery 2 years after primary surgery.
A total of 60,426 individuals were included in the study (SG: n = 7856 and GBP: n = 52,570). Compared to patients in the GBP group, more SG patients failed to achieve a %EWL > 50% (23.0% versus 8.5%, p < .001), regained more than 10 kg after nadir (4.3% versus 2.5%, p < .001), and more often fulfilled the IFSO criteria (8.0% versus 4.5%, p < .001) or the ADA criteria (3.3% versus 1.8%, p < 001) at the 2-year follow-up.
SG is associated with a higher risk for weight non-response compared to GBP. To offer revisional bariatric surgery to all non-responders exceeds the bounds of feasibility and operability. Hence, individual prioritization and intensified evaluation of alternative second-line treatments are necessary.
袖状胃切除术(SG)和胃旁路术(GBP)后,原发性或继发性无应答患者的二线治疗选择是再次手术。目的是在应用四项适应证标准时,分析 SG 和 GBP 后再次手术的理论需求。
基于斯堪的纳维亚肥胖手术登记处的数据,对 SG 和 GBP 进行了四项结局比较:1. 超重减轻百分比(%EWL)<50%,2. 体重最低值后增加超过 10kg,3. 符合 IFSO 指南,或 4. 初次手术后 2 年 ADA 对减重代谢手术的标准。
本研究共纳入 60426 例患者(SG:n=7856;GBP:n=52570)。与 GBP 组相比,更多的 SG 患者未能实现%EWL>50%(23.0%比 8.5%,p<0.001),体重最低值后增加超过 10kg(4.3%比 2.5%,p<0.001),且更多患者在 2 年随访时符合 IFSO 标准(8.0%比 4.5%,p<0.001)或 ADA 标准(3.3%比 1.8%,p<0.001)。
与 GBP 相比,SG 与体重无应答的风险更高。对所有无应答者提供减重手术超出了可行性和可操作性的范围。因此,需要对替代二线治疗进行个体化优先排序和强化评估。