Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy: Patient Selection and Short-term Outcome of 47,101 Primary Operations From the Swedish, Norwegian, and Dutch National Quality Registries.
Poelemeijer, Youri Q M; Liem, Ronald S L; Våge, Villy; Mala, Tom; Sundbom, Magnus; Ottosson, Johan; Nienhuijs, Simon W.
Affiliation
  • Poelemeijer YQM; Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, Netherlands.
  • Liem RSL; Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Surgery, Leiden, Netherlands.
  • Våge V; Groene Hart Hospital, Department of Surgery, Gouda, Netherlands.
  • Mala T; Dutch Obesity Clinic, The Hague, Netherlands.
  • Sundbom M; Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry, Bergen, Norway.
  • Ottosson J; Oslo University Hospital, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Oslo, Norway.
  • Nienhuijs SW; Uppsala University, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ann Surg ; 272(2): 326-333, 2020 08.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32675546
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the use and short-term outcome of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands. BACKGROUND: Although bariatric surgery is performed in high volumes worldwide, no consensus exists regarding the choice of bariatric procedure for specific groups of patients. METHODS: Data from 3 national registries for bariatric surgery were used. Patient selection, perioperative data (severe complications, mortality, and rate of readmissions within 30 days), and 1-year results (follow-up rate and weight loss) were studied. RESULTS: A total of 47,101 primary operations were registered, 33,029 (70.1%) RYGB and 14,072 (29.9%) SG. Patients receiving RYGB met international guidelines for having bariatric surgery more often than those receiving SG (91.9% vs 83,0%, P < 0.001). The 2 procedures did not differ in the rate of severe complications (2.6% vs 2.4%, P = 0.382), nor 30-day mortality (0.04% vs 0.03%, P = 0.821). Readmission rates were higher after RYGB (4.3% vs 3.4%, P < 0.001).One-year post surgery, less RYGB-patients were lost-to follow-up (12.1% vs 16.5%, P < 0.001) and RYGB resulted in a higher rate of patients with total weight loss of more than 20% (95.8% vs 84.6%, P < 0.001). While the weight-loss after RYGB was similar between hospitals, there was a great variation in weight loss after SG. CONCLUSION: This study reflects the pragmatic use and short-term outcome of RYGB and SG in 3 countries in North-Western Europe. Both procedures were safe, with RYGB having higher weight loss and follow-up rates at the cost of a slightly higher 30-day readmission rate.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Reoperation / Obesity, Morbid / Gastric Bypass / Registries / Gastrectomy Type of study: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Country/Region as subject: Europa Language: En Journal: Ann Surg Year: 2020 Type: Article Affiliation country: Netherlands

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Reoperation / Obesity, Morbid / Gastric Bypass / Registries / Gastrectomy Type of study: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Country/Region as subject: Europa Language: En Journal: Ann Surg Year: 2020 Type: Article Affiliation country: Netherlands