Analysis of Obesity-Related Outcomes and Bariatric Failure Rates With the Duodenal Switch vs Gastric Bypass for Morbid Obesity | Bariatric Surgery | JAMA Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Livingston EH. Obesity and its surgical management.  Am J Surg. 2002;184(2):103-11312169352PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E,  et al.  Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  JAMA. 2004;292(14):1724-173715479938PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Christou NV, Look D, Maclean LD. Weight gain after short- and long-limb gastric bypass in patients followed for longer than 10 years.  Ann Surg. 2006;244(5):734-74017060766PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Gould JC, Garren MJ, Boll V, Starling JR. Laparoscopic gastric bypass: risks vs. benefits up to two years following surgery in super-super obese patients.  Surgery. 2006;140(4):524-529, discussion 529-53117011899PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Diniz MdeF, Passos VM, Barreto SM,  et al.  Different criteria for assessment of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass success: does only weight matter?  Obes Surg. 2009;19(10):1384-139218758870PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Dumon KR, Murayama KM. Bariatric surgery outcomes.  Surg Clin North Am. 2011;91(6):1313-133822054156PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Buchwald H. A bariatric surgery algorithm.  Obes Surg. 2002;12(6):733-746, discussion 747-75012568177PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Buchwald H, Buchwald JN. Evolution of operative procedures for the management of morbid obesity 1950-2000.  Obes Surg. 2002;12(5):705-71712448398PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Scopinaro N, Gianetta E, Civalleri D, Bonalumi U, Bachi V. Two years of clinical experience with biliopancreatic bypass for obesity.  Am J Clin Nutr. 1980;33(2):(suppl)  506-5147355830PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hess DS, Hess DW. Biliopancreatic diversion with a duodenal switch.  Obes Surg. 1998;8(3):267-2829678194PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Nelson D, Beekley A, Carter P, Kjorstad R, Sebesta J, Martin M. Early results after introduction of biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch at a military bariatric center.  Am J Surg. 2011;201(5):678-68421545921PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hess DS, Hess DW, Oakley RS. The biliopancreatic diversion with the duodenal switch: results beyond 10 years.  Obes Surg. 2005;15(3):408-41615826478PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Marceau P, Biron S, Hould FS,  et al.  Duodenal switch: long-term results.  Obes Surg. 2007;17(11):1421-143018219767PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Baltasar A, Bou R, Bengochea M,  et al.  Duodenal switch: an effective therapy for morbid obesity—intermediate results.  Obes Surg. 2001;11(1):54-5811361169PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Ren CJ, Patterson E, Gagner M. Early results of laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch: a case series of 40 consecutive patients.  Obes Surg. 2000;10(6):514-523, discussion 52411175958PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kim WW, Gagner M, Kini S,  et al.  Laparoscopic vs. open biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch: a comparative study.  J Gastrointest Surg. 2003;7(4):552-55712763415PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Pratt GM, McLees B, Pories WJ. The ASBS Bariatric Surgery Centers of Excellence Program: a blueprint for quality improvement.  Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2006;2(5):497-503, discussion 50317015199PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Reinhold RB. Critical analysis of long term weight loss following gastric bypass.  Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1982;155(3):385-3947051382PubMedGoogle Scholar
Brolin RE, Kenler HA, Gorman RC, Cody RP. The dilemma of outcome assessment after operations for morbid obesity.  Surgery. 1989;105(3):337-3462922674PubMedGoogle Scholar
Biron S, Hould FS, Lebel S,  et al.  Twenty years of biliopancreatic diversion: what is the goal of the surgery?  Obes Surg. 2004;14(2):160-16415018742PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Baker MT. The history and evolution of bariatric surgical procedures.  Surg Clin North Am. 2011;91(6):1181-120122054148PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Prachand VN, Ward M, Alverdy JC. Duodenal switch provides superior resolution of metabolic comorbidities independent of weight loss in the super-obese (BMI > or = 50 kg/m2) compared with gastric bypass.  J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14(2):211-22019937190PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Prachand VN, Davee RT, Alverdy JC. Duodenal switch provides superior weight loss in the super-obese (BMI > or =50 kg/m2) compared with gastric bypass.  Ann Surg. 2006;244(4):611-61916998370PubMedGoogle Scholar
Strain GW, Gagner M, Inabnet WB, Dakin G, Pomp A. Comparison of effects of gastric bypass and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch on weight loss and body composition 1-2 years after surgery.  Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007;3(1):31-3617116424PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Flum DR, Dellinger EP. Impact of gastric bypass operation on survival: a population-based analysis.  J Am Coll Surg. 2004;199(4):543-55115454136PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Marceau P, Biron S, Hould FS,  et al.  Duodenal switch improved standard biliopancreatic diversion: a retrospective study.  Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2009;5(1):43-4718440876PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Sep 2012

Analysis of Obesity-Related Outcomes and Bariatric Failure Rates With the Duodenal Switch vs Gastric Bypass for Morbid Obesity

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Surgery, Madigan Army Medical Center, Ft Lewis, Washington.

Arch Surg. 2012;147(9):847-854. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2012.1654

Objective To compare the outcomes of a large cohort undergoing biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (DS) vs gastric bypass (GB).

Design Retrospective review of the Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database from 2007 to 2010. All inpatient and outpatient follow-up data were analyzed.

Setting Multicenter database.

Patients Patients undergoing primary DS were compared with a concurrent cohort undergoing GB.

Main Outcome Measures The main outcome measures were (1) weight loss; (2) control of comorbidities including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and sleep apnea; and (3) failure to achieve at least 50% excess body weight loss.

Results One thousand five hundred forty-five patients underwent DS and 77 406 underwent GB, with a mean preoperative body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 52 and 48, respectively (P < .01). The DS was associated with longer operative times, greater blood loss, and longer lengths of hospital stay (all P < .05). Early reoperation rates were higher in the DS group (3.3% vs 1.5%). Percentage of change in BMI was significantly greater in the DS group at all follow-up intervals (P < .05). Subgroup analysis of the superobese population (BMI >50) revealed significantly greater percentage of excess body weight loss in the DS group at 2 years (79% vs 67%; P < .01). Comorbidity control of diabetes, hypertension, and sleep apnea were all superior with the DS (all P < .05). The risk of weight loss failure was significantly reduced with DS vs GB for all patients, with a greater reduction in the BMI more than 50 subgroup.

Conclusions The DS is a less commonly used bariatric operation, with higher early risks compared with GB. However, the DS achieved better weight and comorbidity control, with even more pronounced benefits among the superobese.