Bariatric conversional surgery in younger adults ≤40: who gets converted and comparative risks of conversion to subsequent procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of bariatric surgery in younger adults, and subsequently conversional surgery, is increasing. OBJECTIVES: We aim to describe patients ≤40 requiring conversion, operative details, and complications associated with different procedures. SETTING: MBSAQIP centers (United States and Canada). METHODS: We included patients ≤40 years from 2020 to 2022 undergoing a conversion procedure to sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (SADI-S), or biliopancreatic diversion-duodenal switch (BPD/DS). Baseline characteristics and bivariate complication rates were compared. Multivariate models were generated for 30-day complication for all patients undergoing conversion surgery from index adjustable gastric banding (AGB) or SG. RESULTS: Of 13,486 patients, 842 were converted to SG, 9812 to RYGB, 549 to SADI-S, and 2283 to BPD/DS. The most common reason for conversion to RYGB was gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (48.7%) and to SADI-S and BPD/DS was insufficient weight loss/regain (89.6% and 88.1%, respectively). On multivariate analysis, conversion to RYGB (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.14) and BPD/DS (aOR 2.30) were associated with increased risk compared to SG. After controlling for initial operation, conversion of AGB to RYGB had a higher likelihood of having 30-day serious complication compared to SG (aOR 2.18). For patients with an index SG, conversion to BPD/DS carried similar likelihood of 30-day complication to RYGB (aOR .78, P = .302), while conversion to SADI-S carried lower likelihood (aOR .47, P = .031). CONCLUSION: Each conversion surgery is associated with differing rates of complications, and conversion from index AGB to SG versus RYGB and from index SG to SADI-S versus RYGB or BPD/DS may be associated with fewer complications.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".