Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 20, 2025
A Protocol for Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in Rats using Linear Staplers
Published on: August 21, 2021
Outcome of revisional bariatric surgery for insufficient weight loss after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: an
Katja Linke1, Romano Schneider1, Martina Gebhart2
1University Center for Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, St. Claraspital and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Background:
Insufficient weight loss or secondary weight regain with or without recurrence of comorbidity can occur years after laparoscopic Roux en Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). In selected patients, increasing restriction or adding malabsorption may be a surgical option after conservative measures failed.
Objectives:
Evaluation of short and long term results of revisional surgery for insufficient weight loss or weight regain after LRYGB.
Setting:
Tertiary hospital.
Methods:
Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a cohort of 1150 LRYGB patients. Included were patients, who underwent revisional bariatric surgery after LRYGB for insufficient weight loss with a follow-up of minimal 1 year.
Results:
Fifty-four patients were included in the analysis. After an interdisciplinary evaluation, patients with insufficient weight loss, signs of dumping syndrome, and lacking restriction were offered a nonadjustable band around the pouch (banded group, n = 34) and patients with sufficient restriction, excellent compliance, and adherence were offered a revision to laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion (BPD group, n = 20). The revisional procedure was performed 3.3 ± 2.3 years after LRYGB in the banded-group and after 6.4 ± 4.3 years in the BPD group (P = .001). Mean body mass index at the time of the primary bariatric procedure was 41.7 ± 6.2 kg/m2 in the banded group and 45.2 ± 8.2 kg/m2 in the BPD group (P = .08); minimal body mass index between both operations was 29.1 ± 4.7 kg/m2 in the banded group and 36.5 ± 9.4 kg/m2 in the BPD group, and, at the time of revisional surgery, 31.4 ± 5.5 kg/m2 in the banded group and 40.8 ± 6.7 kg/m2 in the BPD group (P = .0001). The mean body mass index difference 1 year after revisional surgery was 1.3 ± 3.0 kg/m2 in the banded group and 6.7 ± 4.5 kg/m2 in the BPD group (P = .01). In the banded group, 11 patients (32.4%) needed removal of the band, 4 patients (11.8%) needed an adjustment, and 4 patients (11.8%) were later converted to BPD. In the BPD group, 2 (10.0%) patients needed revision for severe protein malabsorption.
Conclusions:
Insufficient weight loss or secondary weight regain after LRYGB is a rare indication for revisional surgery. Banded bypass has modest results for additional weight loss but can help patients suffering from dumping. In very carefully selected cases, BPD can achieve additional weight loss with acceptable complication rate but higher risk for reoperation. Future "adjuvant medical treatments," such as glucagon-like peptide 1 analogues and other pharmacologic treatment options could be an alternative for achieving additional weight loss and better metabolic response.
