Comparison of 30-day outcomes after non-LapBand primary and revisional bariatric surgical procedures from the Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery study

William B. Inabnet, Steven H. Belle, Marc Bessler, Anita Courcoulas, Patchen Dellinger, Luis Garcia, James Mitchell, Brant Oelschlager, Robert O'Rourke, John Pender, Alfons Pomp, Walter Pories, Ramesh Ramanathan, Abdus Wahed, Bruce Wolfe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: The goals were to compare the morbidity and mortality between primary and revisional bariatric surgery and to identify the clinical predictors of adverse outcomes among patients undergoing revisional surgery in the Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery consortium. The study was multi-institutional at university hospitals in the United States. Methods: Data from the LABS-1 (safety) cohort were analyzed, excluding primary gastric banding patients. A total of 3802 LABS-1 patients were included: 3577 who underwent primary surgery and 225 who underwent revisional surgery. The demographic, clinical, operative, and 30-day outcome data were compared between the 2 groups. A nonlinear mixed effects logit model was used to identify independent risk factors for adverse outcomes (death, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, reintubation, reoperation, or discharge after 30 days). Results: Compared with those undergoing revisional surgery, the primary surgery patients were younger (median age 44 versus 49 years, P <.0001) and more likely to be male (20.5% versus 12.7%, P = .006) and heavier (median body mass index 47.3 versus 41.2 kg/m2, P <.0001) and to have more co-morbidities (P <.0001), including hypertension (56.0% versus 46.0%, P = .0044), diabetes (35.7% versus 20.0%, P <.0001), and sleep apnea (50.3% versus 27.2%, P <.0001). The operative time for the revisional procedures was longer (median 181 versus 135 min, P <.0001) and associated with greater blood loss (median 100 versus <50 mL, P <.0001). Adverse outcomes were more likely after revisional surgery (15.1% versus 5.3%, P <.0001, odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.6-3.6). After adjusting for patient characteristics previously shown to be associated with adverse outcomes, this difference remained statistically significant (odds ratio 2.3, 95% confidence interval 1.5-3.8). The 30-day mortality rate was similar in the 2 groups (.4%). Conclusion: Revisional surgery was performed without substantial mortality but with a greater incidence of adverse outcomes than was primary bariatric surgery.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)22-30
Number of pages9
JournalSurgery for Obesity and Related Diseases
Volume6
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2010

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Bariatric surgery
  • Complications
  • Failed restrictive procedure
  • Gastric bypass
  • Revision

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Inabnet, W. B., Belle, S. H., Bessler, M., Courcoulas, A., Dellinger, P., Garcia, L., Mitchell, J., Oelschlager, B., O'Rourke, R., Pender, J., Pomp, A., Pories, W., Ramanathan, R., Wahed, A., & Wolfe, B. (2010). Comparison of 30-day outcomes after non-LapBand primary and revisional bariatric surgical procedures from the Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery study. Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases, 6(1), 22-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2009.10.007