http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21890430
RESULTS:
The preoperative median body mass index was 45.8 kg/m(2) (range 35.8-63.7), and 9 patients (45%) were superobese (body mass index ≥ 50 kg/m(2)). For LSG as a definitive bariatric procedure, 8-9-year follow-up data were available for 13 patients. Of the remainder, 4 patients underwent revision surgery and 3 were lost to follow-up after 2 years. For the entire cohort, the median excess weight loss (EWL) was 73% (range 13-105%) at 1 year, 78% (range 22-98%) at 2 years, 73% (range 28-90%) at 3 years, and 68% (range 18-85%) at 8 or 9 years (P = .074). Of the 13 LSG-only patients with 8-9 years of follow-up, 11 (55% of the starting cohort) had >50% EWL at 8 or 9 years. No significant difference was found in the initial body mass index between the LSG-only patients with >50% EWL and others (45.9 kg/m(2), range 35.8-59.4 versus 45.7 kg/m(2), range 38.9-63.7, respectively; P = .70). The LSG-only patients with >50% EWL had a marginally significantly greater EWL at 1 year compared with the others (76%, range 48-103% versus 45%, range 13-99%, respectively; P = .058).
CONCLUSION:
At 8-9 years of follow-up, 55% of patients had >50% EWL from LSG as a definitive bariatric procedure.
The rest of the patients - 45% - (which I would bet included ALL of the superobese ones) therefore had unsuccessful outcomes - and keep in mind, they EXCLUDED the 4 patients who had revisions (presumably for inadequate WL) or the 3 who were lost to follow up (likely because it didn't work, so they stopped following up). The range at 8 or 9 years of 18-85% was not broken out by starting BMI in the Abstract - the article is behind a paywall, so i can't prove it, but the odds are that the SMOs were at the low end of barely any long-term WL.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23677267
RESULTS:
The mean total weight loss (TWL) among the super morbid obese group (41.31 +/- 21.23 kg) was statistically significantly greater compared to the obese group (24.31 +/- 13.00 kg, p=0.009) and morbidly obese group (26.81 +/- 15.56 kg, p=0.001). The mean percentage excess weight loss (EWL) was clinically significant among obese (57.8%), morbidly obese (42.5%), and super morbid obese patients (45.7%), however, it was not statistically significant between the groups (F[2,105]=2.132, p=0.124).
This is only after 30 months - already, the SMO patients are on average a failure (less than 50% EWL), and the long term results of course would have shown more and more rebound regain.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662747/ (this is the whole article, which is publicly available)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662747/table/T2/
(Table 2 results) - %EWL for SMO = 56%
And this is after only 22 months - longer term results of course would have shown more and more rebound regain.
"Despite a high satisfaction rate overall, it appears that it may be difficult for the super obese population to reach a BMI <30 kg/m2 with LSG alone. Chopra et al
25 found similar results 24 months after surgery, with a greater %EWL in the cohort of patients with a BMI <50 kg/m2 compared with those with BMI >50 kg/m2, although their results were not statistically significant."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24839191
Obes Surg. 2014 Nov;24(11):1843-9. doi: 10.1007/s11695-014-1284-0.
Biliopancreatic diversion-duodenal switch: independent contributions of sleeve resection and duodenalexclusion.
Marceau P1,
Biron S,
Marceau S,
Hould FS,
Lebel S,
Lescelleur O,
Biertho L,
Kral JG.
Author information
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The choice of first-stage operation in bilio-pancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS) is controversial. There are no published long-term comparisons of one- and two-stage BPD-DS outcomes.
METHODS:
During 2001-2009, among 1,762 patients scheduled for BPD-DS 48 had duodenal switch (DS) and 53 sleeve gastrectomy (SG) as first-stage procedures. We compared prospectively updated outcomes of 42 DS (100 % open) and 49 SG (88 % laparoscopic), 13 of whom completed their second stage, to a control group of 91 patients with open one-stage BPD-DS.
RESULTS:
One-year mean percent excess weight loss (%EWL) was greater after SG than DS (47 ± 19 vs. 39 ± 13 SD; p = 0.01) with earlier nadir (16 ± 10 vs. 45 ± 30 months; p < 0.0001) but
more rapid significant weight regain.
After 5 years, %EWL was 12 ± 35 for 9 SG, 45 ± 19 for 30 DS (p < 0.0006), and 70 ± 18 for the first-stage BPD-DS (p < 0.0001).
Weight loss was less after two- than one-stage procedures (p < 0.02). Comorbidities improved progressively between SG, DS and BPD-DS (p < 0.001 for trend). HbA1C decreased by 10, 19, and 31 %, respectively (p < 0.0001). Dyslipidemia was cured in 41, 82, and 100 %, respectively. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased only after DS (12 %; p < 0.0002).
Patient satisfaction was similar for SG and DS but greater after BPD-DS overall (p = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS:
SG and DS independently contribute to beneficial metabolic outcomes after BPD-DS. Long-term weight loss and correction of metabolic abnormalities were better after DS favoring its use as first stage in BPD-DS;
one-stage BPD-DS outcomes were superior to two-staged.
Look at those numbers very very carefully: After 5 years, %EWL was
12 ± 35 for 9 SG,
45 ± 19 for 30 DS
70 ± 18 for the first-stage BPD-DS
And attached is another paper that I got from Dr. Marceau himself recently. I also want to post our conversation, because it helps with the nomenclature.
Dear Dr. Marceau,
I would like to request a copy of your new paper “Long-Term Metabolic Outcomes 5 to 20 Years After Biliopancreatic Diversion” to use in the pro bono insurance appeals I help people prosecute in order to overcome denials of the duodenal switch.
By the way, if I may be a bit of a critic, I would strongly urge you to standardize the reference to duodenal switch and NOT call it a BPD when it isn’t – the abstract of this paper is very misleading:
· In the title, you call it “Biliopancreatic Diversion”
· In the Background, you state:
o “Biliopancreatic diversion (BPD) is a complex bariatric operation requiring meticulous surveillance which has impeded its broad adoption. Improvements in surgical care and technique, better teaching programs, and stringent norms for follow-up have contributed to increased safety of BPD for patients with BMI <50, achieving better long-term results than other bariatric operations. Here we report 20-year outcomes of 2615 consecutive patients (median 8) having open BPD withduodenal switch(DS) between 1992 and 2010.”
o This is CONFUSING.
· In the Conclusions, you again confuse the nomenclature:
o “BPD deserves more consideration as a primary procedure for eligible patients in experienced centers with sufficient resources for delivering high-quality care and long-term follow-up.”
Most insurance companies in the US make a CLEAR distinction between BPD (not approved) and DS (sometimes approved), and almost all of them cite reports of nutritional deficiencies with the BPD as reasons for refusing to cover the DS.
Thank you in advance for your assistance with BOTH issues.
His response:
Dear Diana,
Of course I am happy to send you our last "Long term metabolic Outcomes 5 to 20 years after BPD" and I encourage you to use it is the most valuable document in favor of DS or BPD.
Basically we believe BPD is the most valuable part of this operation. To us it is not confusing it is reinforcing that on an Academic and physiologic point of view the great advantage of both BPD & duodenal switch is the BPD part. Whatever the name used by some insurance company.
My reply:
Dear Dr. Marceau,
Thank you so much for sharing this document.
I was very interested in your answer to my concerns about the nomenclature, and really do want to understand this. The term BPD refers to the intestinal portion of the surgery, irrespective of what is done to the stomach – is that right? Yet it is my understanding that BPD is used internationally for the entire procedure of that intestinal configuration PLUS a distal gastric resection, including REMOVAL of the distal portion of the stomach, pyloric valve and proximal duodenum. The term “duodenal switch,” on the other hand, is used to refer to the entire procedure of that intestinal configuration PLUS a vertical sleeve gastrectomy (BPD/VSG or BPD/DS). How is the term BPD different from DS, in your view?
The issue is, when the term “BPD” is used, the BPD/Distal gastric resection is presumed, and when the term “DS” is used, the BPD/VSG is presumed. Thus, insurance companies have been using poor results from BPD/Distal gastric resection publications and tainting the BPD/VSG surgery with those results.
And his response:
DS has been proven to give less secondary effect and the lengthening of the common channel less protein malabsorption but both BPD & DS are the most efficient bariatric procedures. Our report concerns only DS. Our intention is to insist on the fact that the Intestinal bypass is the active element of this operation. We present ourselves against the unjustified discrimination presented by insurance companies against any BPD.
So, there you go.