Revision of Mason’s procedure (vertical banded gastroplasty) to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: role of an associated fundectomy in weight loss outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) presents a significant rate of long-term complications, and revisions are often necessary. Conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) seems to be preferred, but literature data remain limited. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the indications, safety, results of conversions from VBG to RYGB, and to identify predictive factors of success or failure. SETTING: Two specialized centers of bariatric surgery. METHODS: This bicentric retrospective study included all the patients who benefited from a conversion from VBG to RYGB between 2008 and January 2020. Demographic characteristics, indications, preoperative workups, intraoperative data, complications, and weight loss results were analyzed. RESULTS: . 82.3% of the patients were converted because of weight loss failure and 17.6% because of a complication of their VBG. The global rate of complications was 25%. After an average follow-up of 35 months and a rate of loss to follow-up of 33%, the mean BMI was 33.5 kg/m. The weight loss success rate according to Reinhold's criteria was 64.7%, and resolution of complications was obtained in 89.1%. The association of a fundectomy was a predictive factor of weight loss (odds ratio, .27; P = .04), whereas primary failure of the VBG was a predictive factor of failure. CONCLUSION: Conversion from VBG to RYGB remains the procedure of choice to achieve satisfying weight loss and resolution of functional complications. The addition of a fundectomy appeared to have a significant positive impact on weight loss outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".