Obstetrical and Neonatal Outcomes of Pregnancies following Gastric Bypass Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study in a French Referral Centre
The objective of this study was to analyze obstetrical and neonatal outcomes following Roux en Y Gastric Bypass procedures (RYGBP).
A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a single French tertiary perinatal care and bariatric center. The study involved 24 pregnancies, following RYGBP (exposed group) and two different control groups (non-exposed groups). A body mass index (BMI)-matched control group included 120 pregnancies matched for age, parity, and pregnancy BMI. A normal BMI control group included 120 pregnancies with normal BMI (18.5–24.9 kg/m2), matched for age and parity. Hospital data were reviewed from all groups in the same 6-year period. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes after RYGB were compared, separately, to the two different-matched control groups.
The median interval from RYGBP to conception was 26.6 (range: 3–74) months. Rates of perinatal complications did not differ significantly between the RYGBP group and normal BMI and BMI-matched controls groups. The rate of Cesarean section before labor was higher in the RYGBP patients than in the normal BMI control group (25% vs. 9.3% respectively, p = 0.04). Weight gain was lower in the RYGBP patients than normal BMI control group (5.8 kg vs. 13.2 kg respectively, p < 0.0001). Birthweight was also lower in the RYGBP group than those in normal BMI and BMI-matched controls groups (2,948.2 g vs. 3,368.2 g and 3,441.8 g, respectively, p < 0.0001).
RYGBP surgery was associated with reduced birthweight, suggesting a possible role of nutritional growth restriction in pregnancy.
KeywordsObesity Bariatric surgery Roux-en-Y gastric bypass Pregnancy Birthweight Malabsorptive operations Restrictive operations
The authors express their sincere appreciation to Stefano Scaringi M.D. and Marie-Françoise Guyomar for data acquisition.
Contribution to Authorship
LM and PS carried out the study concept and design. EF, CD and PS were responsible for acquisition of the data. PS, LM, SL, and SM carried out the analysis and interpretation of data. PS, LM, and EF drafted the manuscript. LM and SM supervised the study.
Details of Ethics Approval
The study was approved by the institutional review board (Comité d’évaluation de l’éthique des projets de recherché biomédicale du GHU Nord, IRB N°00006477) as project N° 09-050 on November 6, 2009.
Disclosure of Interests
- 3.ObEpi-Enquête épidémiologique nationale sur le surpoids et l’obésité. Enquête INSERM/TNS HEALTHCARE(KANTARHEALTH)/ROCHE 2009.Google Scholar
- 4.ACOG Committee Opinion number 315, September 2005. Obesity in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106 (3):671–675.Google Scholar
- 16.ACOG. ACOG practice bulletin no 105: bariatric surgery and pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(6):1405–13.Google Scholar
- 18.Msika S. Surgical treatment of morbid obesity by gastrojejunal bypass using laparoscopic roux-en-Y (gastric short circuit). J Chir (Paris). 2002;139(4):214–7.Google Scholar
- 21.Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, de Stavola B, et al. Birth weight and size: charts and equations. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2007;36(1):50–6.Google Scholar
- 45.Eerdekens A, Debeer A, Van Hoey G, et al. Maternal bariatric surgery: adverse outcomes in neonates. Eur J Pediatr. 2009;69(2):191–6.Google Scholar
- 56.ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 299, September 2004 (replaces No. 158, September 1995). Guidelines for diagnostic imaging during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(3):647–51.Google Scholar