Prevalence, Indications, and Complications of Conversional Surgery After Vertical Banded Gastroplasty: A MBSAQIP Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) was once the most popular bariatric procedure in the 1980's, with many patients subsequently requiring conversional surgery. However, knowledge regarding the prevalence and outcomes of these procedures remains limited. This study aims to determine the prevalence, indications, rate of 30-day serious complications, and mortality of conversional surgery after VBG. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the MBSAQIP database from 2020 to 2022 was conducted. Individuals undergoing conversional or revisional surgery after VBG were included. The primary outcomes were 30-day serious complications and mortality. RESULTS: Of 716 VBG conversions, the common procedures included 660 (92.1%) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and 56 (7.9%) sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The main indication for conversion was weight gain for RYGB (31.0%) and for SG (41.0%). RYGB had longer operative times than SG (223.7 vs 130.5 min, p < 0.001). Although not statistically significant, serious complications were higher after RYGB (14.7% vs 8.9%, p = 0.2). Leak rates were higher after SG (5.4 vs 3.5%) but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.4). Mortality was similar between RYGB and SG (1.2 vs 1.8%, p = 0.7). Multivariable regression showed higher body mass index, longer operative time, previous cardiac surgery and black race were independently associated with serious complications. Conversion to RYGB was not predictive of serious complications compared to SG (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.34-2.67, p = 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Conversional surgery after VBG is uncommon, and the rate of complications and mortality remains high. Patients should be thoroughly evaluated and informed about these risks before undergoing conversion from VBG.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".