This study is designed as a prospective multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial comparing two surgical techniques of distal gastric bypass (DGB) in revisional surgery following failed Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Patients will be randomly allocated 1:1 to A) DGB with lengthening of the BPL (DGB type I) or B) DGB with extended AL (DGB type II). Randomisation is stratified for participating center. The study will be performed in a clinical and out-patient setting with regular visits at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months post intervention. The study will be set up as a multicenter study with bariatric centers: St. Antonius hospital, Groene Hart hospital, OLVG, Rijnstate hospital, Elisabeth Twee-steden Hospital, Bravis hospital, Medisch Centrum Leeuwarden, Catharina Hospital.
Rationale: Up to 35% of morbidly obese patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) fail to lose sufficient weight or regain excessive weight after initial weight loss. Currently, there is no standardized approach to revisional surgery after failed RYGB. Distalisation of the RYGB limbs (DGB), with shortening of the common channel and extending either the alimentary limb (AL) or biliopancreatic limb (BPL), can be performed as revisional surgery to induce additional weight loss. To date, there is no general consensus as to optimal surgical technique or limb lengths to be used in distalisation of RYGB in both literature as well as clinical practice. Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of two distalisation techniques of a gastric bypass in revisional surgery with standardised limb lengths in total weight loss (TWL) and the need for treatment for protein calorie malnutrition (PCM). In this randomised controlled trial DGB with lengthening of the BPL (DGB type I) will be compared to DGB with extended AL (DGB type II) in order to conclude which surgical technique is the optimal therapeutic strategy as revision surgery following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Study design: A multicentre randomised controlled trial. Study population: Morbidly obese patients with insufficient weight loss or weight regain following primary RYGB, who are eligible for distalisation surgery. Intervention: A total of 150 participants will be randomised over two treatment groups: group A will undergo DGB type I and group B will undergo DGB type II. Main study endpoints: Primary endpoints: %TWL 1 year after treatment and need for treatment of PCM. Secondary endpoints: weight loss, co-morbidity remission, PCM grading (debilitating defecation patterns, temporary total parenteral nutrition treatment, revision, mortality), morbidity, nutritional deficiencies, quality of life and patient satisfaction.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
150
Distal gastric bypass, revisonal surgery after failed RYGB
Rijnstate Hospital
Arnhem, Gelderland, Netherlands
RECRUITINGCatharina Ziekenhuis
Eindhoven, North Brabant, Netherlands
NOT_YET_RECRUITINGBravis Hospital
Roosendaal, North Brabant, Netherlands
RECRUITINGElisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital
Tilburg, North Brabant, Netherlands
RECRUITINGOLVG
Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
RECRUITINGMedisch Centrum Leeuwarden
Leeuwarden, Provincie Friesland, Netherlands
RECRUITINGGroene Hart Hospital
Gouda, South Holland, Netherlands
NOT_YET_RECRUITINGSt. Antonius hospital
Nieuwegein, Utrecht, Netherlands
RECRUITINGWeight loss
Percentage total weight loss (%TWL) 1 year after treatment
Time frame: 1 year post-operative
Number of Participants with development of protein calorie malnutrition (PCM)
\>6 times/day defecation patterns with diarrhea, assessed by fecal score questionnaire
Time frame: 1 year postoperative
Weight loss
Patient weight in kilograms is collected preoperative up to 3 years follow-up to determine weight loss.
Time frame: Up to 3 year follow up
TWL
Weight loss in kilograms at a follow-up time point divided by weight in kilograms measured at DGB
Time frame: 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36 month follow up
Defecation pattern
Faecal score questionnaire to measure defecation frequencey and consistency
Time frame: 3, 12 and 36 months postoperative
PCM grading
Information is collected about each patient who has undergone DGB to ascertain debilitating defecation patterns (grade I), requirement of f participants requiring temporary total parenteral nutrition (grade II, revision surgery (grade III), and mortality (grade IV) after DGB.
Time frame: up to 3 year follow up
Complications
Information is collecting regarding the occurrence of one or more defined adverse events following DGB. Defined adverse events collected are: unplanned readmission to hospital, unplanned admission to the intensive care unit, unplanned return to the operating theatre, prolonged length of stay in hospital, and death. The reason for any of the events is also collected. If death occurs, the cause of death is collected to determine the likelihood of the death being caused by the DGB.
Time frame: uo to 3 year follow up
Quality of life questionnaire
BODY-Q questionnaire
Time frame: 3, 12 and 36 months postoperative
Impact defecation pattern questionnaire
Fecal incontinence quality of life scale FIQL questionnaires
Time frame: 3, 12 and 36 months postoperative
Patient satisfaction questionnaire
Self-designed 5-point scale measuring instrument for patient satisfaction
Time frame: 1 and 3 year postoperative
Eating behaviour questionnaire
Three factor earing questionnaire TFEQ R21
Time frame: 3, 12 and 36 months postoperative
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.