Cited by 60Bariatric Surgery and OutcomesGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

Pregnancy and perinatal outcomes according to surgery to conception interval and gestational weight gain in women with previous gastric bypass

Stentebjerg, Louise Laage, Andersen, Lise Lotte Torvin, Renault, Kristina, Støving, René Klinkby, Jensen, Dorte Møller·2017·The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare perinatal and pregnancy outcomes including adherence to the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) recommendations for gestational weight gain (GWG) in pregnant women with conception <18 months (early group) compared to ≥18 months following gastric bypass (late group). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study comprising 71 women with gastric bypass and a singleton pregnancy presenting at Odense University Hospital, November 2007-October 2013. Data were extracted from medical records and laboratory systems. The primary outcomes were timing of pregnancy and adherence to the IOM's recommendations for GWG. Secondary outcomes were birthweight, preterm delivery, cesarean section (CS), iron deficiency and post partum hemorrhage (PPH). RESULTS: Forty-three (61%) women conceived less than 18 months after gastric bypass surgery. Women in the late group had a significantly higher risk of requiring CS or receiving intravenous iron supplementation compared to the early group (57% versus 30%, p = 0.03 and 29% versus 7%, p = 0.02, respectively). Early conception was not significantly associated with insufficient GWG, preterm delivery or birthweight. Among 54 women with information on GWG, only 13 (24%) had an appropriate GWG. CONCLUSION: The majority of pregnant women with gastric bypass did not fulfill guidelines for GWG; however, this study could not support the recommendation to postpone pregnancy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14767058.2016.1208746

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stentebjerg, L. L., Andersen, L. L. T., Renault, K., Støving, R. K., & Jensen, D. M.
Affiliations
Odense University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Stentebjerg, Louise Laage
Venue
The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine
Published
2016-07-17
Volume
30
Issue
10
Pages
1182-1188
ISSN
  • 1476-4954 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-7058
OpenAlex
W2502698246
Cited by
60
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3
FWCI
5.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Novo Nordisk
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
gastric bypass, bariatric surgery, pregnancy outcomes, perinatal outcomes, gestational weight gain, conception timing, IOM weight gain guidelines, cesarean section, preterm birth, birth weight, iron deficiency, postpartum hemorrhage
MeSH terms
Adult, Birth Weight, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Obesity, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Pregnancy Outcome, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Gastric Bypass, Weight Gain, Body Mass Index, Logistic Models, Practice Guidelines as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review