Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: Outcomes of a case-matched comparison of primary versus revisional surgery

Outcome comparison between primary and revisional bariatric surgery: A propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric procedures for weight recurrence are rising but are considered higher risk and less effective than primary bariatric procedures. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between primary and revisional bariatric surgery for weight recurrence.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from adult patients who underwent revisional or primary bariatric surgery from 2016 to 2020 in an academic institution were reviewed. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy were performed primarily or as conversion procedures after laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, vertical banded gastroplasty, and sleeve gastrectomy. 1:1 propensity score matching was performed between revisional bariatric surgery and primary bariatric surgery, and logistic regression analysis was used to compare up to 2-year weight loss and comorbidity resolution outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of172 cases (86 revisional bariatric surgery versus 86 primary bariatric surgery) were included. Groups were matched for age, sex, preoperative body mass index, bariatric procedure, diabetes, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea. Procedure duration (203 ± 78 vs 154 ± 69 minutes; P < .001) and length of stay (2.3 ± 2.1 vs 1.7 ± 1 days; P = .02) were longer for revisional bariatric surgery versus primary bariatric surgery, respectively. Total weight loss was less in revisional bariatric surgery compared with primary bariatric surgery at 1 year (23 ± 10% vs 32 ± 9%; P < .001) and 2 years (21 ± 12.% vs 32 ± 10%; P < .001) of follow-up; however, no differences were detected in postoperative occurrences, emergency department visits, readmissions, reintervention and reoperation rates, and comorbidity resolution.

CONCLUSION

Although revisional bariatric surgery was associated with longer operation times, prolonged hospitalization, and lower weight loss than primary bariatric surgery, it was accomplished safely and led to substantial weight loss and comorbidity resolution. This information can guide patient counseling before revisional surgery for weight recurrence.

Revisional surgery after restrictive surgery: midterm outcomes of a tertiary center

INTRODUCTION

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is a challenging type of procedure for the surgeons due to its specific morbidity and efficiency. The RBS has a higher prevalence nowadays and this study may help to improve scarce data upon this specific topic.

METHODS

Data from 252 patients undergoing RBS after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) between 2005 and 2019, were analyzed at 2 years of follow up. A subgroup analysis of third procedure was also performed.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity occurred in 35 patients (37%) in the LSG group and 40 patients (25%) in the LAGB group (p = 0.045). At 2 years of RBS, mean weight was 92.8 ± 26.7 kg, BMI was 33.1 ± 8.56 kg/m2 for patients who had RBS after LSG. When RBS was performed after LAGB, mean weight at 2 years was 90.1 ± 20.7 kg and BMI was 32.5 ± 6.45 kg/m2. TWL for RBS performed after LSG was 12.7 ± 16.4% versus 25.5 ± 10.3% after LAGB (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

RBS after LSG seems to lead to higher overall morbidity whereas RBS after LAGB lead to more perioperative issues.

Medium Term Outcomes of Revision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy after Gastric Banding: A Propensity Score Matched Study

PURPOSE

Revision bariatric surgery may be undertaken after weight loss failure and/or complications following primary bariatric surgery. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RLSG) after gastric banding (GB) to those of primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (PLSG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective, propensity-score matched study was conducted to compare between PLSG (control) patients and RLSG after GB (treatment) patients. Patients were matched using 2:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching without replacement. Patients were compared on weight loss outcomes and postoperative complications for up to five years.

RESULTS

144 PLSG patients were compared against 72 RLSG patients. At 36 months, PLSG patients had significantly higher mean %TWL than RLSG patients (27.4 ± 8.6 [9.3-48.9]% vs. 17.9 ± 10.2 [1.7-36.3]%, p < 0.01). At 60 months, both groups had similar mean %TWL (16.6 ± 8.1 [4.6-31.3]% vs. 16.2 ± 6.0 [8.8-22.4)]%, p > 0.05). Early functional complication rates were slightly higher with PLSG (13.9% vs. 9.7%), but late functional complication rates were comparatively higher with RLSG (50.0% vs. 37.5%). The differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Both early (0.7% vs 4.2%) and late (3.5% vs 8.3%) surgical complication rates were lower in PLSG patients compared to RLSG patients but did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

RLSG after GB has poorer weight loss outcomes than PLSG in the short-term. Although RLSG may carry higher risks of functional complications, the safety of RLSG and PLSG are overall comparable.

Is Revisional Gastric Bypass as Effective as Primary Gastric Bypass for Weight Loss and Improvement of Comorbidities?

BACKGROUND

Revisional gastric bypass (R-RYGB) surgery is utilized for the management of inadequate weight loss or weight regain observed after some cases of bariatric surgeries. Data on the mid-term effectiveness of primary gastric bypass (P-RYGB) compared with R-RYGB (e.g., post sleeve gastrectomy/gastric banding) are controversial.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of all patients who received P-RYGB and R-RYGB (January 2011-June 2015) at our center. One hundred twenty patients who underwent P-RYGB and 34 R-RYGB who completed 18 months follow-up were included. We compared the effectiveness of P-RYGB with R-RYGB by assessing four anthropometric, two glycemic, and four lipid parameters, as well as the control of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), hypertension, dyslipidemia (remission, improvement, persistence, relapse, de novo), mortality and complications rates.

RESULTS

A comparison of the effectiveness of P-RYGB with R-RYGB at 18 months revealed no significant differences in patients' age, gender, and preoperative BMI between groups. However, patients who received P-RYGB had lower mean weight (P = 0.001) and BMI (P < 0.001), reflected by a higher mean delta BMI (P = 0.02), total weight loss percentage (TWL%) (P < 0.0001) and excess weight loss percentage (EWL%) (P < 0.0001). No differences in glycemic parameters, lipid profiles, control of T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia were observed. No death is reported and complication rates were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Although R-RYGB effectively addressed inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and recurrence of comorbidities after restrictive bariatric surgery, R-RYGB resulted in inferior weight loss compared with P-RYGB. Neither procedure differed in their clinical control of T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Both procedures exhibited comparable complication rates.

Outcomes in revisional bariatric surgery: a high-volume single institution experience

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate outcomes of adjustable gastric band (AGB) conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), SG conversion to RYGB and RYGB revision procedures.

METHODS

Patients undergoing secondary bariatric surgery between 2009 and 2017 were retrospectively identified from a prospective database. Primary outcomes were weight loss and improvement in comorbidities. For weight loss, percent of total body weight loss (%TWL) and percentage of excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) were included. Comorbidities included were hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), cardiovascular risk (CV) and hypertension.

RESULTS

266 Secondary bariatric procedures were analyzed. There were four Grade IIIb complications within 30 days. There was greater %EBMIL at 12 and 24 months in the AGB to RYGB group, and in %TWL at 24 months compared to AGB to SG group (p < 0.05). Only AGB to RYGB had significantly continued improvement in these two parameters at 24 months compared to at 6 months post-operatively-%EBMIL and %TWL tapered off in the other procedures. There was significantly lower CV risk in dyslipidemic patients at 24 months in the AGB to RYGB compared to the AGB to SG group. In the SG to RYGB patients, there was significant improvement in CV risk in dyslipidemic patients at 24 months compared to baseline. There was significant improvement in HbA1C in diabetics in AGB to RYGB patients at 6 and 12 months, in AGB to SG patients at 12 months, and in SG to RYGB patients at 12 and 24 months compared to baseline. In RYGB revision and SG to RYGB patients, there was a relative increase in the number of patients being normotensive at 24 months compared to baseline.

CONCLUSION

Secondary bariatric surgery is a complex and challenging procedure that may improve weight loss and cardiovascular risk for certain procedures but further studies will be necessary.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Perioperative Nutrition, Metabolic, and Nonsurgical Support of Patients Undergoing Bariatric Procedures - 2019 Update: Cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), Obesity Medicine Association (OMA), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Boards of Directors in adherence with the AACE 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPGs, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include: contextualization in an adiposity-based chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current health care arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory, with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Safe Surgical Opportunity? Results of a Case-Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after adjustable gastric banding (AGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) compared with primary RYGB, in regard to early and late morbidity, weight, and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities.

METHODS

The group of patients undergoing revisional RYGB was matched in a 1:1 ratio with control patient who underwent a primary RYGB, based on age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, preoperative body mass index (BMI), and diabetes mellitus. Demographics, anthropometrics, preoperative work-up, and perioperative data were retrieved.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients (16 males and 99 females) with a mean age of 45.5 ± 1.5 years underwent revisional RYGB following either LAGB in 82 patients (71.3%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in 33 patients (28.7%). There was no conversion and no mortality in either group. Revisional RYGB was associated with similar early (16.5 vs 15.6%, ns) and late (42.6% vs 32.2%, ns) morbidity rates with a mean follow-up of 25.3 ± 16.6 months compared to primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The revisional RYGB group had significantly less weight loss (mean %EWL 67.4 ± 20.7 vs 72.7 ± 22.9, p = 0.023 and mean %EBMI 68.1 ± 22 vs 78.3 ± 25.7, p = 0.01) at the time of 1 year. Improvement of comorbidities including hypertension (62.5 vs 70.5%; p > 0.05), diabetes (73.7 vs 79%; p > 0.05), and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (100 vs 97%; p > 0.05) was similar.

CONCLUSION

This large case-matched study suggests that conversion of SG or AGB to RYGB is feasible with early and late comparable morbidity in an accredited center; even weight results might be inferior.

Low Postoperative Levels of C-Reactive Protein Are an Early Predictor for an Uncomplicated Course After Bariatric Surgery: A Retrospective, Validated Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is popularly used to treat or prevent morbidity in severely obese patients. Severe complications are rare, but their early detection has a significant impact on clinical outcomes. We aimed to determine whether blood tests in the first few postoperative days are reliable predictors for complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 1073 patients who underwent laparoscopic bariatric surgery between 2009 and 2018 at our center. Clinical outcome was correlated with postoperative serum C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count, and vital signs, analyzed using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. A total of 570 procedures between 2009 and 2015 were used to calculate the best cutoff values (calculation group), which were validated with 330 different patients operated upon between 2016 and 2018 (validation group).

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients (4.2%) developed anastomotic or staple-line leakages in the calculation group. The ROC curve showed a good reliability for CRP levels on day 2 (area under the ROC curve=0.86); the highest Youden index existed for a cutoff of 119 mg/L. White blood cell count and heart rate were poor predictors. Even though several characteristics differed in the validation cohort, test quality of the cutoff was high (sensitivity, 71.4%; specificity, 94.9%; positive predictive value, 23.8%; negative predictive value, 99.3%). The prediction was excellent especially for leakages appearing on days 2 to 9 (sensitivity 100.0%, negative predictive value 100%). Leakages from day 10 were rare and prediction poor (sensitivity 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

A CRP level on day 2 <120 mg/L is a good predictor of a postoperative course without leakage, even though the predictive value goes down for late-appearing events. An earlier CRP measurement added no predictive benefit. The cutoff value was validated in an internal cohort and could be applied to different populations.

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as an Effective Bariatric Revisional Surgery after Restrictive Procedures

INTRODUCTION

Revisional surgery must be considered when insufficient weight loss is attained or weight is subsequently regained. This study aimed to investigate the value of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as a revisional procedure after restrictive surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational, retrospective study including patients initially operated on for morbid obesity with restrictive techniques (vertical-banded gastroplasty [VBG], adjustable gastric band [AGB], and sleeve gastrectomy) and reoperated with RYGB in our centre between December 1994 and January 2019. Demographic and anthropometric data, associated comorbidities (diabetes mellitus type II, arterial hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and surgery-related data (approach, complications, and hospital stay) were evaluated at 5 different time points: initial (prior to first intervention), after the first surgical intervention, before the second intervention (gastric bypass), after the gastric bypass, and at present.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients were included. VBG was the most frequent initial procedure (n = 33). The mean age was 39 ± 9.52 years, and the average initial weight was 143.53 ± 28.6 kg. Weight loss was achieved in all groups, with a median excess weight loss of 58% after the first surgery and 40.3% after gastric bypass. In terms of weight loss, the best results after the second surgery were obtained when the first surgery was AGB, with statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

RYGB is effective as a conversion procedure after a previous restrictive surgery, obtaining a significant reduction in weight and BMI. It has an acceptable morbidity rate and is more effective after an AGB.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutrition, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of patients undergoing bariatric procedures - 2019 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPG) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, the Obesity Medicine Association, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists boards of directors in adherence to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPG, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include contextualization in an adiposity-based, chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based, and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current healthcare arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence-based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Revisional Gastric Bypass Is Inferior to Primary Gastric Bypass in Terms of Short- and Long-term Outcomes-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Although Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the main primary bariatric procedure, it has also been utilized as revisional bariatric surgery. Our aim is to compare revisionary gastric bypass with primary gastric bypass through systematic review with meta-analysis.

Methods

Available literature was searched for eligible studies up to December 2017. Inclusion criteria were reports on morbidity, %EWL, or diabetes remission. Secondary outcomes involved mortality, anastomotic leakage, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Random effect meta-analyses were undertaken.

Results

Initial search yielded 1164 references. Final meta-analysis involved 21 studies and revealed significant differences in terms of morbidity (RR1.54, p < 0.001) and EWL (WMD-19.9, p < 0.001). There were no differences in diabetes remission.

Conclusion

Revisionary RYGB has worse weight loss effect with greater morbidity rate than primary RYGB.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11695-018-3300-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Length of stay by uncomplicated diabetes bariatric surgery patients: A laparoscopic adjustable banding versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVE

Bariatric surgery is an effective procedure for morbidly obese patients when all else fails. The purpose of this study was to compare the hospital length of stay (LOS) for two surgical procedures, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

METHODS

This study was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2009 to 2014. Patients who received bariatric surgery as indicated by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure codes were selected (N = 4001). Cases were limited to uncomplicated diabetic patients. Differences in the odds of long vs short (2< and ≥2) stay for a patient receiving LSG were compared with LAGB while adjusting for hospital volume, hospital size, patient age, gender, ethnicity, season, and year using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The odds for LSG (odds ratio [OR] = 0.100, 0.066-0.150, P < 0.001) patients for long LOS are lower when compared with LAGB. In the stratified logistic regression model, both male (OR = 0.157, 0.074-0.333, P < 0.001) and female (OR = 0.077, 0.046-0.127, P < 0.001) had reduced odds of extended LOS for LSG. Discharged patients in the year 2012 (OR = 0.660, 0.536-0.813, P < 0.001) had decreased odds of having a longer LOS when compared with the year 2014. Both government, nonfederal (OR = 0.452, 0.251-0.816, P = 0.008), and private investor-owned (OR = 0.421, 0.244-0.726, P < 0.001) patients had similar odds for long duration of stay when compared with government or private. Urban non-teaching (OR = 1.954, 1.653-2.310, P < 0.001) patients had higher odds for long LOS in comparison with urban teaching. New England patients' (OR = 0.365, 0.232-0.576, P < 0.001) odds for extended LOS were lower when compared with pacific. Both patients who received care in low (OR = 1.330, 1.109-1.595, P = 0.002) and medium (OR = 1.639, 1.130-2.377, P = 0.009) volume hospital had increased odds for long duration of stay. Female patients in the stratified logistic regression model with high (OR = 1.330, 1.109-1.595, P < 0.002) volume had elevated odds of extended LOS when compared with very low volume hospital.

CONCLUSION

Among the uncomplicated diabetic patients, LSG provides a substantially low odds of extended LOS after adjusting for covariates when compared with LAGB. The finding of the relative reduction in LOS for LSG suggests opportunities for improvement both for cost reduction for third party insurance payers and greater efficacy and outcomes for patients.

Long-term outcomes and frequency of reoperative bariatric surgery beyond 15 years after gastric banding: a high band failure rate with safe revisions

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has had encouraging early results. However, intermediate and late results were discouraging, and LAGB is presently being replaced by stapled procedures. There is still ongoing debate whether LAGB should be abandoned altogether.

OBJECTIVE

To present our outcomes beyond 15-year follow-up after LAGB.

SETTING

Private hospital, Bern, Switzerland.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of patients receiving LAGB between 1997 and 2002 with minimum 15-year follow-up. Patient characteristics, co-morbidities, reoperative bariatric surgery (RBS), and weight trends were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 387 LAGB patients were identified. Of them, 342 (88.4%) had a minimum of 15 years of follow-up (range, 15-21 yr). There were 270 (78.9%) women with a mean age of 40.3 years (range, 15-62 yr) and body mass index (BMI) of 43.1 kg/m² (range, 30.0-60.1 kg/m²) and 72 (21.1%) men with a mean age of 41.2 years (range, 16-61 yr) and BMI of 43.6 kg/m² (range, 33.0-72.5 kg/m²). During follow-up, 283 (82.7%) patients underwent a mean of 3.3 reoperative bariatric operations (range, 1-5), with 224 (65.5%) converted to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). At the end of the study period, 96 (28%) patients still had a band in place. No deaths were recorded. At most recent follow-up after LAGB, mean excess BMI loss was 65.4% (range, -9.4% to 134.5%) with significant decrease in co-morbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 28% of patients had sufficient weight loss outcomes after LAGB alone and predictive selection criteria are lacking. The majority of LAGB operations fail even with close structured follow-up. RBS can be performed safely.

Evolution of body composition of obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Bariatric surgery is increasingly common in the fight against morbid obesity. However, after this intervention, it is not fully understood the evolution of weight loss and how body composition changes. The objective of this work is to study the evolution after surgery of weight and body composition of obese patients that underwent bariatric surgery.

METHODS

In this retrospective and prospective study, we studied initially BMI and body composition of obese patients who attended nutritional appointments at Centro Hospitalar São João E.P.E. We collected personal data and anthropometric measurements between the pre-surgery appointment up to 60 months after surgery.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 793 patients, of which 86.5% were female and 13.5% were male, with a mean age of 43 years (SD = 10.5 years) and mean height of 1.62 m (SD = 0.079 m). Patients undergoing gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass had, respectively, an initial BMI reduction of 6.3 kg/m², 13.2 kg/m² and 15.4 kg/m² and an initial fat mass% reduction of 4.4%, 14.3% and 17.3%. On the other hand, they had an initial increase of 3.2%, 10.8% and 12.4% of water%, 1.4%, 3.9% and 4.6% of fat and water-free mass%, and 1.9%, 7.3% and 8.9% of skeletal muscle mass%, respectively. BMI and fat mass% on average had a large decrease in the first 12 months, increasing slightly from 24 months onwards. The opposite behaviour was observed for water%, fat and water-free mass% and skeletal muscle mass%.

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric surgery initially allows a substantial decrease in BMI as well as beneficial changes in the overall body composition of the individuals. Gastric bypass was the method that caused the most changes, followed by sleeve gastrectomy and, finally, gastric band. On average, after 24 months of follow-up, and for all surgical procedures studied, we observed a reversion in BMI and body composition values, showing the difficulties in maintaining weight and fat loss.