Advertisement

Obesity Surgery

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 787–794 | Cite as

The Impact of Biliopancreatic Diversion with Duodenal Switch (BPD/DS) Over 9 Years

  • Gladys W. Strain
  • Mehyar H. Torghabeh
  • Michel Gagner
  • Faith Ebel
  • Gregory F. Dakin
  • Jonathan S. Abelson
  • Daniel Connolly
  • Alfons Pomp
Original Contributions

Abstract

Background

There is limited information on the multiple long-term effects of the biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS).

Methods

Patients who consented to a BPD/DS from 1999 to 2010 were evaluated for weight change, complications, comorbidity resolution, body composition, quality of life, and depressive symptoms during visits at 1, 3,5, 7, and 9 years. Descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and pair-wise comparisons were calculated for each of the five follow-up cohorts vs. the baseline cohort.

Results

Between 1999 and 2010, 284 patients received a BPD/DS; 275 patients (69.8 % women) age 42.7 years, BMI 53.4 kg/m2 qualified for baseline analysis. Two hundred seventy-five patients were available in year 1; 275 patients in year 3; 273 patients in year 5; 259 patients in year 7; and 228 patients in year 9. Gender distribution was not different. BMI was 30.1 at 1 year and 32.0 at 9 years. Body fat was reduced to 26 % after 2 years. Complications requiring surgery were significant. Nutritional problems developed in 29.8 % of patients over the course of observation. The baseline Beck Depression Index (BDI) was 13.9 and 7.2 in year 1. Year 1 through 9 remained unchanged. There were significant positive changes in quality of life between baseline and year 1 for most domains. These positive changes were maintained for the follow-up cohorts. After surgery the resolution of comorbidities continued for the 9 years.

Conclusions

Weight loss during the first year was well maintained, resolving comorbidities and improving quality of life. Rates of surgical complications resemble other bariatric procedures. Long-term nutrient deficiencies are of concern.

Keywords

Obesity surgery Biliopancreatic diversion with the duodenal switch Quality of life after bariatric surgery Bariatric surgery complications Body composition after surgical weight loss 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Paul Christos and Gülce Askin, MPH, for their assistance with the data analysis. They were partially supported by the following grant: Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College (UL1-TR000457-06). We are grateful for the efforts of Maureen Moore, MD for her contribution to the assessment of surgical complications. Sara Hassen deserves mention for her input into the body composition data analysis. The Department of Surgery at Weill Cornell School of Medicine supported this project.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Disclosures

All authors report no conflict of interest relevant to the contents of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Farrell TM, Haggerty SP, Overby DW, et al. Clinical application of laparoscopic bariatric surgery: an evidence-based review. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:930–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E, et al. Bariatric surgery: systemic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;292:1724–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang SH, Stoll CR, Song J, et al. The effectiveness and risks of bariatric surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, 2003–2012. JAMA: Surg. 2014;149(3):275–87. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3654.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buchwald H, Orien DM. Metabolic/bariatric surgery world wide 2011. Obesity Surg. 2013;23:427–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson B, Gill RS, de Gara CJ, Karmali S, Gagner M. Biliopancreatic Diversion: The Effectiveness of Duodenal Switch and Its Limitations. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2013, Article ID:974762, 8 pp.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marceau P, Biron S, Marceau S, et al. Long term metabolic outcomes 5 to 20 years after biliopancreatic diversion. Obes Surg. 2015;25:1584–93. doi: 10.1007/s11695-015-1599-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Topart P, Becouarn G, Salle A. Five- year follow-up after biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2011;7:199–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hess DS, Hess DW, Oakley RS. The biliopancreatic Diversion with the duodenal switch: results beyond 10 years. Obes Surg. 2005;15:408–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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;10:514–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Strain GW, Wang J, Gagner M, et al. Bioimpedance for severe obesity: Comparing research methods for total body water and resting energy expenditure. Obesity. 2008;16:1953–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beeson WL, Batech M, Schultz L, et al. Comparison of body composition by bioelectric impedance analysis and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in Hispanic diabetics. Int J Body Comp Res. 2010;8:45–50.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feisard MI, Greenway FL, Delany JP. Comparisons of methods to assess body composition changes during a period of weight loss. Obes Res. 2005;13:845–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faria SL, Faria OP, Careal MDA, et al. Validation study of multi-frequency bioelectric impedance with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry among obese patients. Obes Surg. 2014;24:1476–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ware J, Snow K, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. 1993; The Health Institute, New England Medical Center: Boston.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD, Kosloski KD, et al. Development of a brief measure to assess quality of life in obesity. Obes Res. 2001;9:102–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD. Psychometric evaluation of the Impact of Weight on Quality Of Life-Lite Questionnaire (IWQOL-Lite) in a community sample. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:157–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelsohn M, et al. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961;4:561–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beck AT, Steer RA, Garbin MG. Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clin Psychol Rev. 1988;8:77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strain GW, Gagner M, Pomp A, et al. A comparison of weight loss (WL) and body composition (BC) changes with four surgical procedures. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2009;5:582–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sethi M, Chau E, Youn A, et al. Long-term outcomes after biliopancreatic diversion with and without duodenal switch: 2-, 5-, 10- year data. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016. doi: 10.1016//j.soard.2016.03.006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Strain GW, Kolotkin RL, Dakin G, et al. The effects of weight loss after bariatric surgery on health related quality of life and symptoms of depression. Nutr Diabetes. 2014;4:e132. doi: 10.1038/nutd.2014.29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sovik TT, Taha O, Aasheim ET, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic gastric bypass versus laparoscopic duodenal switch for super obesity. Br J Surg. 2010;97:160–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Topart PA, Becouarm G. Revision and reversal after biliopancreatic diversion for excessive side effects or ineffective weight loss: a review of the current literature on indications and procedures. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11:965–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Risstad H, Søvik TT, Engström M, et al. Five-year outcomes after laparoscopic gastric bypass and laparoscopic duodenal switch in patients with body mass index of 50 to 60: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(4):352–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bardaro SJ, Gagner M, Consten E, et al. Routine cholecystectomy during laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch is not necessary. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007;3(5):549–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Crea N, Pata G, Di Betta E, et al. Long-term results of biliopancreatic diversion with or without gastric preservation for morbid obesity. Obes Surg. 2011;21:139–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gourash WF, Ebel F, Lancaster K, et al. Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS): Retention strategy and results at 24 months. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;10:514–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Isom KA, Andromatos I, Ariango M, et al. Nutrition and metabolic support recommendation for the bariatric patient. Nutr Clin Pract. 2014;29:718–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saif T, Strain G, Gagner M, et al. An evaluation of nutrient status after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy 1, 3, and 5 years after surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012;8:542–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gladys W. Strain
    • 1
  • Mehyar H. Torghabeh
    • 1
  • Michel Gagner
    • 2
  • Faith Ebel
    • 1
  • Gregory F. Dakin
    • 1
  • Jonathan S. Abelson
    • 1
  • Daniel Connolly
    • 1
  • Alfons Pomp
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryWeill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryHopital du Sacre CoeurMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations