Cited by 223Bariatric Surgery and OutcomesMinimally Invasive Surgical TechniquesBody Contouring and Surgery

Duodenal Switch Provides Superior Weight Loss in the Super-Obese (BMI ???50kg/m2) Compared With Gastric Bypass

Open access
Prachand, Vivek N., DaVee, Roy T., Alverdy, John C.·2006·Transactions of the ... Meeting of the American Surgical Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Although weight loss following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is acceptable in patients with preoperative body mass index (BMI) between 35 and 50 kg/m, results from several series demonstrate that failure rates approach 40% when BMI is > or =50 kg/m. Here we report the first large single institution series directly comparing weight-loss outcomes in super-obese patients following biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (DS) and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB). METHODS: All super-obese patients (BMI > or =50 kg/m) undergoing standardized laparoscopic and open DS and RYGB between August 2002 and October 2005 were identified from a prospective database. Two-sample t tests were used to compare weight loss, decrease in BMI, and percentage of excess body weight loss (% EBWL) after surgery. chi analysis was used to determine the rate of successful weight loss, defined as achieving at least 50% loss of excess body weight. RESULTS: A total of 350 super-obese patients underwent DS (n = 198) or RYGB (n = 152) with equal 30-day mortality (DS,1 of 198; RYGB, 0 of 152; P = not significant). The % EBWL at follow-up was greater for DS than RY (12 months, 64.1% vs. 55.9%; 18 months, 71. 9% vs. 62.8%; 24 months, 71.6% vs. 60.1%; 36 months, 68.9% vs. 54.9%; P < 0.05). Total weight loss and decrease in BMI were also statistically greater for the DS (data not shown). Importantly, the likelihood of successful weight loss (EBWL >50%) was significantly greater in patients following DS (12 months, 83.9% vs. 70.4%; 18 months, 90.3% vs. 75.9%; 36 months, 84.2% vs. 59.3%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Direct comparison of DS to RYGB demonstrates superior weight loss outcomes for DS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.sla.0000239086.30518.2a

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Prachand, V. N., DaVee, R. T., & Alverdy, J. C.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Venue
Transactions of the ... Meeting of the American Surgical Association
Published
2006
Volume
124
Issue
4
Pages
276-284
ISSN
0066-0833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2043071325
Cited by
223
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 21
FWCI
15.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Transactions of the Meeting of the American Surgical Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Body Contouring and Surgery
Keywords
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, super obesity, bariatric surgery, weight loss outcomes, excess weight loss, body mass index, biliopancreatic diversion, surgical failure rate
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Duodenum, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Morbid, Retrospective Studies, Gastric Bypass, Weight Loss, Biliopancreatic Diversion

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