International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research
105
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijmscr
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
PAGE NO.
105-110
10.37547/ijmscr/Volume05Issue05-21
Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Indications, Techniques
and Outcomes - A Comprehensive Review
Jumaev N.A.
Department of Surgery, Tashkent Medical University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Teshaev O.R.
Department of Surgery, Tashkent Medical University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Juraev J.Z.
Department of Surgery, Tashkent Medical University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Lim I.I.
Department of Surgery, Tashkent Medical University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Gulomova M.J.
Department of Surgery, Tashkent Medical University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Kurbanov G.I.
Department of Surgery, Tashkent Medical University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Received:
31 March 2025;
Accepted:
29 April 2025;
Published:
31 May 2025
Abstract:
Background: Revisional bariatric surgery has emerged as a critical component of comprehensive obesity
management, addressing inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and complications following primary bariatric
procedures.
Objective: This comprehensive review examines current evidence regarding indications, technical considerations,
and outcomes of revisional bariatric surgery to guide clinical decision-making.
Methods: A systematic review of contemporary literature was conducted, analyzing patient selection criteria,
surgical techniques, complication rates, and long-term outcomes of revisional procedures.
Results: Revision rates range from 10-25% over 10 years, with adjustable gastric band procedures demonstrating
the highest revision requirements (30-60%). Revisional surgery achieves 40-70% excess weight loss (%EWL),
though outcomes remain inferior to primary procedures. Complication rates are elevated (15-30% overall
morbidity, 0.5-2% mortality) compared to primary operations.
Conclusions: Revisional bariatric surgery can provide meaningful benefits for appropriately selected patients but
requires careful risk-benefit assessment. Optimal outcomes depend on thorough preoperative evaluation,
experienced surgical technique, and comprehensive long-term follow-up.
International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research
106
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijmscr
International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research (ISSN: 2771-2265)
Keywords:
Revisional surgery, bariatric surgery, weight regain, surgical complications, metabolic surgery.
Introduction:
The exponential growth in bariatric
surgery procedures worldwide has generated a
corresponding increase in patients requiring revisional
interventions.
Contemporary
registry
data
demonstrate that revisional operations constitute 5-
15% of all bariatric procedures performed annually,
representing a significant clinical challenge for
metabolic surgeons (1). The complexity inherent in
revisional
surgery,
compounded
by
elevated
complication rates and variable outcomes, necessitates
meticulous patient selection and sophisticated surgical
planning.
The conceptual framework for defining bariatric
surgery failure remains subject to ongoing debate
within the surgical community. The prevailing
consensus defines inadequate weight loss as achieving
less than 50% excess div weight loss (%EWL) at two
years postoperatively, while significant weight regain is
characterized by recovery of more than 25% of
maximum weight lost (2). However, contemporary
outcome
assessment
increasingly
incorporates
multidimensional
parameters
including
patient
satisfaction, quality of life improvements, and
resolution of obesity-related comorbidities.
Understanding the underlying mechanisms of primary
surgery failure represents a fundamental prerequisite
for developing appropriate revisional strategies.
Technical factors, including gastrojejunal anastomotic
dilation and gastric pouch enlargement, account for
approximately 30-40% of failures, while behavioral and
physiological factors contribute to the remaining cases
(3). This mechanistic understanding directly informs
the selection of optimal revisional approaches.
Indications for Revisional Surgery
Weight-Related Indications
Inadequate weight loss following primary bariatric
surgery affects 10-20% of patients, with substantially
higher rates observed following purely restrictive
procedures compared to combined restrictive-
malabsorptive operations (4). The temporal framework
for assessing weight loss adequacy varies among
institutions, though most evidence-based guidelines
recommend a minimum observation period of 18-24
months after primary surgery before considering
revisional intervention (5).
Weight regain presents a more nuanced clinical
challenge, as some degree of weight recovery is
anticipated in the long-term trajectory following all
bariatric procedures. Clinically significant weight
regain, operationally defined as recovering more than
20-25% of maximum weight lost, occurs in 20-40% of
patients by 10 years postoperatively (6). The etiology of
weight regain demonstrates multifactorial complexity,
encompassing anatomical modifications, behavioral
adaptations, and metabolic adjustments that
collectively influence long-term weight maintenance.
Technical Complications
Mechanical complications necessitating revisional
intervention
include
anastomotic
stricture,
gastrogastric fistula formation, adjustable band
slippage or erosion, and progressive pouch or sleeve
dilation. Adjustable gastric band-related complications
demonstrate the highest incidence, affecting 30-60% of
patients and establishing this procedure as having the
greatest revision requirement (7).
Gastrojejunal anastomotic stricture develops in 5-15%
of gastric bypass patients, typically manifesting within
the initial three months postoperatively. While the
majority of strictures respond favorably to endoscopic
balloon dilation, recurrent or refractory cases may
require definitive surgical revision (8).
Chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)
following sleeve gastrectomy affects 20-30% of
patients, with a subset requiring conversion to gastric
bypass for adequate symptom control (9). The
development of Barrett's esophagus or failure of
optimal medical management constitutes clear
indications for revisional intervention.
Metabolic Indications
Recurrence or inadequate resolution of obesity-related
comorbidities may warrant consideration of revisional
surgery. Type 2 diabetes remission rates demonstrate
temporal decline, with approximately 30-50% of
patients experiencing diabetes recurrence by 5 years
postoperatively (10). This phenomenon underscores
the importance of long-term metabolic monitoring and
potential need for revisional intervention.
Severe
protein-energy
malnutrition
following
malabsorptive procedures may necessitate revision to
less
malabsorptive
operations.
Biliopancreatic
diversion with duodenal switch carries the highest risk
of severe malnutrition, affecting 5-10% of patients and
occasionally requiring conversion to less malabsorptive
configurations (11).
Preoperative Evaluation
Anatomical Assessment
Comprehensive anatomical evaluation forms the
cornerstone of revisional surgery planning. Upper
gastrointestinal series with barium contrast provides
International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research
107
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijmscr
International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research (ISSN: 2771-2265)
dynamic assessment of gastric pouch dimensions,
anastomotic
diameter,
and
intestinal
transit
characteristics
(12).
However,
radiographic
interpretation can be challenging due to surgically
altered anatomy and previous interventional changes.
Computed
tomography
with
oral
contrast
enhancement offers superior visualization of complex
anatomical relationships, particularly valuable for
identifying internal hernias, dilated bowel segments, or
inflammatory processes (13). Advanced three-
dimensional reconstruction techniques may provide
additional surgical planning information for technically
complex cases.
Upper endoscopy enables direct visualization of
anastomotic sites, assessment of pouch dimensions,
and evaluation of mucosal integrity. The presence of
marginal ulceration, anastomotic stricture, or
gastrogastric fistula can be definitively diagnosed
through endoscopic evaluation (14).
Functional Assessment
Comprehensive evaluation of eating behaviors and
psychological factors proves crucial for determining
revision candidacy. Patients demonstrating persistent
maladaptive eating patterns, including binge eating
disorder or grazing behaviors, may benefit from
intensive behavioral interventions before considering
surgical revision (15).
Objective assessment of gastric emptying through
nuclear scintigraphy can identify delayed gastric
transit, which may contribute to symptomatology and
suboptimal weight loss outcomes (16). Similarly,
esophageal manometry and ambulatory pH monitoring
provide valuable diagnostic information for patients
with reflux symptoms under consideration for revision.
Risk Stratification
Revisional surgery demonstrates elevated morbidity
and mortality rates compared to primary procedures,
necessitating meticulous risk assessment protocols.
The Obesity Surgery Mortality Risk Score (OS-MRS)
provides standardized risk stratification, though its
validation was based on primary procedure
populations (17).
Factors associated with increased revisional surgery
risk include advanced patient age, multiple previous
abdominal operations, severe medical comorbidities,
and complex anatomical configurations. The presence
of extensive intra-abdominal adhesions, inflammatory
changes, or previous complications further amplifies
operative risk (18).
Surgical Techniques and Approaches
Band to Bypass Conversion
Conversion from adjustable gastric band to Roux-en-Y
gastric bypass represents one of the most frequently
performed revisional procedures. The operation can be
executed as either a single-stage or two-stage
procedure,
depending
on
the
presence
of
complications such as band erosion or severe
inflammatory changes (19).
Single-stage conversion involves band removal with
immediate gastric bypass creation during the same
operative session. This approach offers the advantage
of requiring only one anesthetic exposure and
facilitates faster return to normal nutritional patterns.
However, the presence of significant inflammation or
erosion may mandate a staged approach to minimize
complications (20).
The technical aspects of band-to-bypass conversion
encompass complete adhesiolysis, identification of
anatomical planes, and creation of appropriately sized
gastric pouches. Particular attention must be directed
toward preserving the left gastric artery and avoiding
esophageal injury during band removal (21).
Sleeve to Bypass Conversion
Conversion from sleeve gastrectomy to gastric bypass
addresses inadequate weight loss, weight regain, or
severe GERD symptomatology. The procedure involves
creating a small gastric pouch from the existing sleeve
configuration
and
constructing
a
Roux-en-Y
gastrojejunal anastomosis (22).
Technical challenges include operating within
thickened, scarred gastric tissue and ensuring adequate
pouch dimensions without compromising anastomotic
integrity. The gastrojejunal anastomosis may prove
more technically demanding due to gastric wall
thickening and limited tissue mobility (23).
Re-sleeve gastrectomy represents an alternative
approach for sleeve-related weight regain, involving
resection of dilated fundal portions while maintaining
the original sleeve configuration. However, this
approach carries inherent risks of staple line leak and
may not address underlying behavioral determinants
(24).
Bypass Revision
Revision of failed gastric bypass procedures presents
unique technical challenges due to altered anatomy
and the necessity of identifying specific failure
mechanisms. Common revision options include pouch
resizing, gastrojejunal anastomotic revision, or
conversion to malabsorptive procedures (25).
Gastric pouch resizing involves resection of dilated
pouches and recreation of appropriately sized
reservoirs.
The
procedure
requires
careful
identification of vagal innervation and preservation of
International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research
108
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijmscr
International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research (ISSN: 2771-2265)
adequate vascular supply to the reconstructed pouch
(26).
Anastomotic revision addresses dilated gastrojejunal
anastomoses through creation of new, smaller
connections. Various technical approaches have been
described, including resection with reanastomosis,
banding procedures, and emerging endoscopic
techniques (27).
Conversion to Malabsorptive Procedures
Patients demonstrating inadequate weight loss after
restrictive procedures may benefit from conversion to
malabsorptive operations such as biliopancreatic
diversion with duodenal switch. This approach provides
superior weight loss outcomes but carries substantially
elevated nutritional risks (28).
The distal gastric bypass represents a less extreme
malabsorptive option, involving lengthening of the
biliopancreatic limb to 150-200 cm while shortening
the alimentary limb. This modification enhances
malabsorption while maintaining familiar gastric
bypass anatomy (29).
Outcomes and Complications
Weight Loss Outcomes
Revisional bariatric surgery generally produces inferior
weight loss compared to primary procedures, with
%EWL ranging from 40-70% depending on revision type
and underlying indication (30). Conversion from
restrictive to malabsorptive procedures tends to
generate superior weight loss compared to purely
restrictive revisions.
Long-term weight maintenance following revisional
surgery remains challenging, with weight regain rates
similar to or exceeding those of primary procedures.
Factors associated with successful weight loss
maintenance
include adherence to
follow-up
protocols, continued behavioral modifications, and
absence of eating disorders (31).
Complication Rates
Revisional bariatric surgery demonstrates elevated
complication rates compared to primary procedures.
Overall morbidity ranges from 15-30%, with serious
complications occurring in 5-15% of cases (32). The
most frequently encountered complications include
anastomotic leak, bleeding, wound infection, and
venous thromboembolism.
Mortality rates for revisional surgery range from 0.5-
2%, substantially higher than the 0.1-0.5% reported for
primary procedures (33). Factors contributing to
increased mortality include advanced patient age,
severe comorbidities, emergency operations, and
complex revisions requiring multiple anastomoses.
Nutritional Consequences
Revisional procedures, particularly those involving
enhanced malabsorption, demonstrate elevated rates
of nutritional deficiencies compared to primary
operations. Protein-energy malnutrition may develop
in 5-15% of patients following conversion to
malabsorptive procedures (34).
Micronutrient deficiencies are nearly universal
following malabsorptive revisions, necessitating
lifelong supplementation and monitoring protocols.
Deficiencies of fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K), vitamin
B12, folate, iron, and trace elements are common and
may require parenteral supplementation (35).
Patient Selection and Counseling
Candidacy Criteria
Appropriate patient selection proves crucial for
achieving successful revisional surgery outcomes. Ideal
candidates
demonstrate
comprehensive
understanding of initial surgery failure, commitment to
lifestyle modifications, and realistic expectations
regarding revision outcomes (36).
Contraindications to revisional surgery include active
substance abuse, untreated psychiatric disorders,
inability to comply with postoperative requirements,
and prohibitive surgical risk. Patients with severe eating
disorders may require psychiatric stabilization before
considering revision (37).
Expectation Management
Patient counseling must comprehensively address the
increased risks, potentially inferior weight loss
outcomes, and elevated complication rates associated
with revisional surgery. The lifetime risk of requiring
additional operations should be discussed, as some
patients may require multiple revisions (38).
Alternative therapeutic approaches, including medical
weight management, behavioral interventions, and
endoscopic therapies, should be considered before
proceeding with revisional surgery. These less invasive
options may provide meaningful benefits with
substantially lower risk profiles (39).
Future Directions
Emerging Techniques
Endoscopic approaches to revision are gaining
popularity due to their minimally invasive nature and
reduced complication rates. Techniques such as
transoral outlet reduction, endoscopic sleeve
gastroplasty,
and
intragastric
balloons
offer
alternatives to surgical revision for appropriately
selected patients (40).
Robotic surgical platforms may offer advantages for
complex revisional procedures, providing enhanced
International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research
109
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijmscr
International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research (ISSN: 2771-2265)
visualization and dexterity in challenging anatomical
situations. However, long-term outcomes data and
cost-effectiveness analyses remain necessary (41).
Predictive Factors
Research into predictive factors for revisional surgery
success continues to evolve. Genetic markers, gut
hormone profiles, and metabolomic signatures may
eventually enable personalized surgical planning and
improved patient selection (42).
CONCLUSIONS
Revisional bariatric surgery represents a complex and
challenging domain within metabolic surgery practice.
While these procedures can provide meaningful clinical
benefits for appropriately selected patients, they carry
substantially increased risks and may produce inferior
outcomes compared to primary operations. Optimal
results require careful patient selection, thorough
preoperative evaluation, and experienced surgical
technique. Future research should prioritize improving
patient selection criteria, developing less invasive
revision techniques, and identifying predictive factors
for surgical success.
REFERENCES
English WJ, DeMaria EJ, Brethauer SA, et al. American
Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery estimation
of metabolic and bariatric procedures performed in the
United States in 2016. Surg Obes Relat Dis.
2018;14(3):259-263.
Brethauer SA, Kothari S, Sudan R, et al. Systematic
review on reoperative bariatric surgery: American
Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Revision
Task Force. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10(5):952-972.
Christou NV, Look D, Maclean LD. Weight gain after
short- and long-limb gastric bypass in patients followed
for longer than 10 years. Ann Surg. 2006;244(5):734-
740.
Sarwer DB, Wadden TA, Moore RH, et al. Preoperative
eating behavior, postoperative dietary adherence, and
weight loss after gastric bypass surgery. Surg Obes
Relat Dis. 2008;4(5):640-646.
Mechanick JI, Apovian C, Brethauer S, et al. Clinical
practice guidelines for the perioperative nutrition,
metabolic, and nonsurgical support of patients
undergoing bariatric procedures - 2019 update. Surg
Obes Relat Dis. 2020;16(2):175-247.
Courcoulas AP, King WC, Belle SH, et al. Seven-year
weight trajectories and health outcomes in the
Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS)
study. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(5):427-434.
Suter M, Calmes JM, Paroz A, et al. A 10-year
experience with laparoscopic gastric banding for
morbid obesity: high long-term complication and
failure rates. Obes Surg. 2006;16(7):829-835.
Fernandez AZ Jr, DeMaria EJ, Tichansky DS, et al.
Multivariate analysis of risk factors for death following
gastric bypass for treatment of morbid obesity. Ann
Surg. 2004;239(5):698-702.
Genco A, Soricelli E, Casella G, et al. Gastroesophageal
reflux disease and Barrett's esophagus after
laparoscopic
sleeve
gastrectomy:
a
possible,
underestimated long-term complication. Surg Obes
Relat Dis. 2017;13(4):568-574.
Arterburn DE, Bogart A, Sherwood NE, et al. A multisite
study of long-term remission and relapse of type 2
diabetes mellitus following gastric bypass. Obes Surg.
2013;23(1):93-102.
Marceau P, Biron S, Hould FS, et al. Duodenal switch:
long-term results. Obes Surg. 2007;17(11):1421-1430.
Carucci LR, Turner MA, Conklin RC, et al. Roux-en-Y
gastric bypass surgery for morbid obesity: evaluation of
postoperative
extraluminal
leaks
with
upper
gastrointestinal series. Radiology. 2006;238(1):119-
127.
Campbell A, Holland J, Cottrell J, Thompson R, Brown D,
Brown W, et al. Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Across the
IFSO Chapters: Key Insights on the Baseline Patient
Demographics, Procedure Types, and Mortality from
the Eighth IFSO Global Registry Report. Obes Surg.
2024;34(5):1464-1474.
doi:
10.1007/s11695-024-
07146-z. PMID: 38592648.
Zhou XD, Chen QF, Yang W, Zuluaga M, Targher G,
Byrne CD, et al. Burden of disease attributable to high
div mass index: an analysis of data from the Global
Burden of Disease Study 2021. eClinicalMedicine.
2024;76:102848. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102848.
Zhou XD, Chen QF, Yang W, Zuluaga M, Targher G,
Byrne CD, et al. Erratum: Burden of disease attributable
to high div mass index: an analysis of data from the
Global
Burden
of
Disease
Study
2021
(eClinicalMedicine (2024) 76, (S2589537024004279),
(10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102848)).
eClinicalMedicine.
2024;77:102958. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102958.
Zhou XD, Chen QF, Targher G, Byrne CD, Mantzoros CS,
Zhang H, et al. Global burden of disease attributable to
metabolic risk factors in adolescents and young adults
aged 15
–
39, 1990
–
2021. Clin Nutr. 2024;43(12):3041-
3054. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2024.11.016.
Zhang H, Zhou XD, Shapiro MD, Lip GYH, Tilg H, Valenti
L, et al. Global burden of metabolic diseases, 1990
–
2021.
Metabolism.
2024;161:155999.
doi:
10.1016/j.metabol.2024.155999.
Puzziferri N, Roshek TB 3rd, Mayo HG, et al. Long-term
International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research
110
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijmscr
International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research (ISSN: 2771-2265)
follow-up after bariatric surgery: a systematic review.
JAMA. 2014;312(9):934-942.
Watkins BM, Montgomery KF, Ahroni JH, et al.
Adjustable gastric banding in an ambulatory surgery
center. Obes Surg. 2005;15(7):1045-1049.
Stroh C, Birk D, Flade-Kuthe R, et al. Results of sleeve
gastrectomy-data from a nationwide survey on
bariatric
surgery
in
Germany.
Obes
Surg.
2009;19(5):632-640.
Jacobs M, Bisland W, Gomez E, et al. Laparoscopic
sleeve gastrectomy: a retrospective review of 161
patients. Obes Surg. 2010;20(11):1530-1535.
Iannelli A, Dainese R, Piche T, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve
gastrectomy for morbid obesity. World J Gastroenterol.
2008;14(6):821-827.
Gagner M, Deitel M, Erickson AL, et al. Survey on
laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) at the Fourth
International
Consensus
Summit
on
Sleeve
Gastrectomy. Obes Surg. 2013;23(12):2013-2017.
Parikh M, Issa R, McCrillis A, et al. Surgical strategies
that may decrease leak after laparoscopic sleeve
gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of
9991 cases. Ann Surg. 2013;257(2):231-237.
Himpens J, Cadiere GB, Bazi M, et al. Long-term
outcomes of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.
Arch Surg. 2011;146(7):802-807.
Christou NV, Look D, Maclean LD. Weight gain after
short- and long-limb gastric bypass in patients followed
for longer than 10 years. Ann Surg. 2006;244(5):734-
740.
Thompson CC, Chand B, Chen YK, et al. Endoscopic
suturing for transoral outlet reduction increases weight
loss after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery.
Gastroenterology. 2013;145(1):129-137.
Marceau P, Hould FS, Simard S, et al. Biliopancreatic
diversion with duodenal switch. World J Surg.
1998;22(9):947-954.
Fobi MA, Lee H, Holness R, et al. Gastric bypass
operation for obesity. World J Surg. 1998;22(9):925-
935.
Müller MK, Wenger C, Schiesser M, et al. Quality of life
after bariatric surgery--a comparative study of
laparoscopic banding vs. bypass. Obes Surg.
2008;18(12):1551-1557.
Karmali S, Brar B, Shi X, et al. Weight recidivism post-
bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Obes Surg.
2013;23(11):1922-1933.
Suter M, Calmes JM, Paroz A, et al. A 10-year
experience with laparoscopic gastric banding for
morbid obesity: high long-term complication and
failure rates. Obes Surg. 2006;16(7):829-835.
Buchwald H, Estok R, Fahrbach K, et al. Weight and type
2 diabetes after bariatric surgery: systematic review
and meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2009;122(3):248-256.
Risstad H, Kristinsson JA, Fagerland MW, et al. Bile acid
profiles over 5 years after gastric bypass and duodenal
switch: results from a randomized clinical trial. Surg
Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13(9):1544-1553.
Bal BS, Finelli FC, Shope TR, et al. Nutritional
deficiencies after bariatric surgery. Nat Rev Endocrinol.
2012;8(9):544-556.
Heneghan HM, Yimcharoen P, Brethauer SA, et al.
Influence of pouch and stoma size on weight loss after
gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012;8(4):408-415.
Kinzl JF, Schrattenecker M, Traweger C, et al.
Psychosocial predictors of weight loss after bariatric
surgery. Obes Surg. 2006;16(12):1609-1614.
Müller MK, Attigah N, Wildi S, et al. High secondary
failure rate of rebanding after failed gastric banding.
Surg Endosc. 2009;23(7):1554-1558.
ASGE Bariatric Endoscopy Task Force and ASGE
Technology Committee, Abu Dayyeh BK, et al.
Endoscopic bariatric therapies. Gastrointest Endosc.
2015;81(5):1073-1086.
Jirapinyo P, Slattery J, Ryan MB, et al. Evaluation of an
endoscopic suturing device for transoral outlet
reduction in patients with weight regain following
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Endoscopy. 2013;45(7):532-
536.
Buchs NC, Pugin F, Bucher P, et al. Learning curve for
robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc.
2012;26(4):1116-1121.
Cottam S, Cottam D, Medlin W, et al. A matched cohort
analysis of single anastomosis loop duodenal switch
versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with 18-month follow-
up. Obes Surg. 2016;26(11):2740-2744.
