Propensity score matching analysis comparing outcomes between primary and revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after adjustable gastric banding: a retrospective record-based cohort study
Surgical Endoscopy, ISSN: 1432-2218, Vol: 37, Issue: 2, Page: 1303-1315
2023
- 2Citations
- 6Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations2
- Citation Indexes2
- Captures6
- Readers6
Article Description
Background: One-stage revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) after Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is widely adopted, but its safety is still debated. Objective: This study aimed to compare outcomes between primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (PRYGB and RRYGB after LAGB. Method: A retrospective record-based cohort study of patients who underwent PRYGB and RRYGB for failed LAGB and completed at least 2 years of follow-up from 2008 to 2019. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to obtain a balanced sample of patients with RRYGB and PRYGB interventions by adjusting for baseline covariates including age and sex. Results: Patients with PRYGB (n = 558) and RRYGB (n = 156) were included. PSM identified 98 patients for RRYGB and 98 patients for PRYGB. Both cohorts exhibited significant reductions in BMI compared to baseline values (p < 0.001), but reductions were significantly higher in PRYGB compared to those in RRGYB at 6 months (− 10.55 ± 8.54 vs. − 8.38 ± 5.07; p = 0.032), 1-year (− 21.50 ± 8.19 vs. 16.14 ± 6.93; p < 0.001), and 2 years (− 24.02 ± 7.85 vs. − 18.93 ± 6.80; p < 0.001), respectively. A significant improvement in food tolerance from the 1st to the 2nd year was seen after RYGB (p < 0.001). The rates of early and late complications were similar in both cohorts (p = 0.537, p = 1.00). Overall re-intervention rates were 5.1 and 3.1% for RRYGB and PRYGB p = 0.721). Both cohorts exhibited significant improvement in comorbidities after 2 years (p < 0.001). Conclusions: One-stage RRYGB for failed LAGB is safe and effective with comparable rates of complications, re-interventions, and resolution of associated comorbid conditions compared to PRYGB.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85139400654&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09675-z; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36197519; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00464-022-09675-z; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09675-z; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-022-09675-z
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know