Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is one of the most commonly performed metabolic and bariatric surgeries (MBS) worldwide due to its simplicity and efficacy. However, long-term outcomes have revealed limitations, including recurrent weight regain, inadequate weight loss, and nutritional deficiencies, leading to an increasing need for revisional bariatric surgery. While revisional procedures can restore weight loss efficacy, they may also carry additional risks of micronutrient and protein deficiencies due to anatomical and physiological alterations.
Methods
This review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and included studies published up to April 2025. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was performed. Eligible studies reported nutritional outcomes after revisional bariatric procedures following LSG. Data on vitamin D, vitamin B12, iron, calcium, albumin levels, and anemia were extracted. Meta-analyses were conducted for both continuous and categorical outcomes.
Results
Fourteen studies with a total of 1,049 patients were included. Deficiencies in key micronutrients such as vitamin D, vitamin B12, albumin, calcium, zinc and iron were reported across revision types. A co-author network analysis was performed to identify and address overlapping cohorts. The analysis revealed notable rates of nutritional deficiencies across all procedures. Vitamin D deficiency was more frequent in certain revision surgeries. Iron deficiency showed statistically significant differences between groups (p = 0.025), with one revision type associated with a higher risk (p = 0.0106). Albumin and anemia rates did not differ significantly between procedures, but anemia remained a common complication overall.
Conclusion
Micronutrient deficiencies are notably prevalent following revisional bariatric surgery after LSG. Despite the routine use of supplementation regimens, deficiencies in vitamin D, vitamin B12, iron, and protein continue to be frequently reported. Considerable variability among surgical techniques highlights the need for individualized nutritional monitoring and the implementation of standardized supplementation protocols.
1. Micronutrient deficiencies are common after all types of revisional surgery, even with prescribed multivitamin regimens.
2. The type of revisional bariatric surgery performed directly impacts which deficiencies are most likely.
3. The choice of revisional procedure has direct and significant implications for the patient's future nutritional health.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has emerged as one of the most commonly performed metabolic and bariatric surgeries (MBS) globally, owing to its technical simplicity, efficacy in weight reduction, and substantial improvement in obesity-related comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes and hypertension [1‐3]. The procedure involves resection of approximately 80% of the stomach, resulting in both restrictive and hormonal effects that promote satiety and metabolic benefits through modulation of gut hormones such as ghrelin [4].
Despite these advantages, accumulating evidence has revealed several long-term limitations of LSG. These include significant recurrent weight regain, development of de novo or worsening gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), inadequate weight loss in a subset of patients, and progressive nutritional deficiencies [5, 6]. Such complications have led to an increasing need for revisional bariatric surgery, with current estimates suggesting 15–20% of LSG patients may require secondary procedures [7, 8].
Anzeige
Revisional surgery following LSG presents unique technical challenges and heightened clinical risks compared to primary procedures. The altered anatomy, including sleeve dilation, strictures, and fibrotic changes along previous staple lines, contributes to increased operative complexity [9, 10]. Furthermore, revisional procedures are associated with substantially higher rates of postoperative complications, including anastomotic leaks (4.6% vs 0.45% in primary cases), surgical site infections, and bleeding [11].
From a nutritional perspective, conversion to malabsorptive procedures such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve (SADI-S) introduces additional concerns. These include exacerbated risks of micronutrient deficiencies (particularly iron, vitamin B12, vitamin D, and calcium) and protein-energy malnutrition, which may be more common in revisional cases than after primary LSG [12]. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the nutritional outcomes following revisional bariatric surgeries performed after LSG, with a particular focus on frequently reported micronutrients such as vitamin D, vitamin B12, iron, ferritin, calcium, albumin, and zinc, as well as protein-energy malnutrition.
Methods
This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [8, 9], and was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD420251063133).
Search Strategy
A comprehensive literature search was conducted across four major electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus. The search included studies published up to April 10, 2025. The following combination of keywords and Boolean operators was used: (revision OR "revisional bariatric surgery" OR "reoperative bariatric surgery" OR "conversional bariatric surgery" OR reoperation OR "revision surgery" OR "post sleeve") AND ("sleeve gastrectomy" OR "vertical sleeve gastrectomy" OR "laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy" OR LSG OR VSG OR "gastric sleeve" OR sleeve) AND (nutrition OR "nutritional deficiency" OR "micronutrient deficiency" OR "vitamin deficiency" OR "mineral deficiency" OR malnutrition OR "nutritional status" OR "nutritional complication"). Additional sources were identified by manually screening the references of relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Anzeige
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case–control studies, and large case series involving ten or more patients. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were also screened for relevant references. The target population consisted of adult patients who had previously undergone sleeve gastrectomy and required revisional bariatric surgery due to inadequate weight loss, complications, or nutritional concerns. Studies were included if they reported at least one nutritional outcome, such as deficiencies in vitamin D, vitamin B12, iron, or protein, or documented measures like albumin levels. Only studies published in the past 10 to 15 years were considered, and both English and non-English studies were eligible if a full translatable text was available.
Studies were excluded if they were case reports, editorials, conference abstracts without full data, or animal studies. Also excluded were those involving pediatric populations, primary bariatric procedures without prior sleeve gastrectomy, or non-surgical interventions. Endoscopic-only revisions were not included unless performed alongside surgical revisions. Additionally, studies that did not provide quantitative nutritional data, focusing solely on weight loss without relevant nutritional data, were excluded.
Study Selection Process
The screening of studies was conducted in two stages. First, the titles and abstracts of the identified studies were screened for relevance. In the second stage, the full texts of potentially relevant studies were assessed for eligibility.
Data Extraction
Four reviewers performed data extraction independently using a standardized data extraction form. The following information was extracted from each study: author, publication year, study design, sample size, surgical procedure, follow-up duration, average age of participants, and BMI values. Nutritional outcomes were collected using a data extraction form, and all data were reviewed by the fifth reviewer. Any discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved through discussion and consensus.
Quality Assessment
The quality assessment focused on key aspects such as study design, sample representativeness, comparability, outcome assessment, and follow-up. Randomized clinical trials were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool [13], while cohort and case–control studies were assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) [14]. This approach ensured an appropriate and systematic appraisal tailored to each study design.
Statistical Analysis
Single-arm meta-analyses were conducted using the meta package in R software (version 4.4.2) [15]. Heterogeneity among included studies was assessed using Chi-square and I-square statistical tests for continuous outcomes, pooled means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, while for dichotomous outcomes, pooled proportions and corresponding 95% CIs were computed. We considered homogeneity among studies when P > 0.1, I2 < 50%, and a fixed-effects model was chosen for meta-analysis; otherwise, a random-effect model was used, and when the heterogeneity persisted, we performed a sensitivity analysis. A subgroup meta-analysis was conducted to compare different revisional surgeries.
Results
Search Results
The initial search yielded a total of 653 studies from database sources, including 200 from PubMed, 284 from Scopus, 151 from Web of Science, and 18 from Cochrane. After removing 174 duplicate records, 479 unique studies remained for primary screening. Following the title and abstract screening, 436 studies were excluded for reasons such as being review articles (n = 28), being letters and editorials (n = 19), or being irrelevant. This left 39 full-text articles for detailed assessment. Of these, 30 were excluded for various reasons. 6 studies were included after a manual search of previous systematic reviews. Ultimately, 15 studies were included in the systematic review (supplementary appendix) [16‐27, 29, 30, 31].
Systematic Review
Fifteen studies reporting nutritional outcomes for revisional bariatric surgery after failed LSG were included and presented chronologically (Table 1). A co-author network graph was generated to identify potential connections or duplications among the included studies (Fig. 1).
The co-author network revealed multiple links between several studies. Upon meticulous review, Sanchez-Pernaute et al. (2020), Basha et al. (2020), and Salama et al. (2023) were found to share overlapping authorship [20, 22, 28]. Hany et al. (2022) and Hany et al. (2023) were determined to be completely different studies focusing on distinct revisional bariatric procedures [27, 29]. Dijkhorst et al. (2018) and Dijkhorst et al. (2020) involved the same cohort with varying follow-up periods [18, 25]. Similarly, Basha et al. (2020) and Salama et al. (2023) analyzed the same cohort with different follow-up durations [22, 28], raising concerns about duplication of baseline and outcome data. To address this, the decision was made to include only the most recent study in the analysis to ensure the most comprehensive and updated data, while avoiding redundancy and duplicated cohorts.
Baseline Characteristics
After excluding similar cohorts, the study included a total of 1,049 patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery, of whom 801 were female (76%). The mean age across all patients was 44.2 years, with a mean BMI of 45.97 kg/m2. Follow-up durations ranged from 6 to 96 months. All included studies reported weight regain or failure to lose weight as the primary indication for revision surgery (Table 1).
When stratified by type of revisional procedure, 388 patients underwent OAGB, with a mean age of 43.11 years, a BMI of 43.16 kg/m2, and females comprised 78% of this group. Patients revised to RYGB totaled 303, with a mean age of 46.57 years, a BMI of 43.23 kg/m2, and 80.1% were female. The SADI-S group included 237 patients, with a younger mean age of 42.5 years, a higher BMI of 49.02 kg/m2, and females represented 69% of this group.
Quality Assessment
In this systematic review, to ensure the accuracy of the assessment of the validity of the included studies, we applied the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [30]. These tools evaluate the two included RCTs based on these five domains: (randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result), thus increasing the accuracy and reliability of our results (supplementary appendix).
Anzeige
For the 12 included cohort studies and one case–control study, we used the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale tool (NOS) [14], which assessed them according to those categories: selection, which could be awarded a maximum of 4 stars, comparability (maximum 2 stars), and outcome (maximum 3 stars). The overall results vary between moderate and low risk of bias (supplementary appendix). Limitations across almost all studies include a lack of clarity on follow-up duration and potential outcome assessment bias due to the observational nature of the data.
Nutritional Outcomes
Vitamin D
Of the 15 included studies, 12 examined Vitamin D outcomes, five reported continuous data and six provided categorical data on deficiency rates. In studies assessing mean Vitamin D levels [20, 21, 26, 27, 28], OAGB group yielded a pooled mean of 29.23 ng/mL (95% CI: 18.86–40.40; I2 = 96%), which dropped after sensitivity analyses with pooled mean = 20.82 (95% CI: 17.07–24.57; I2 = 59.1) In comparison, the RYGB group yielded a pooled mean of 31.43 ng/mL (95% CI: 27.03–35.84; I2 = 53%). For the SADI-S group, the studies reported a pooled mean of 21.65 ng/mL (95% CI: 16.98–26.33; I2 = 55%) (Fig. 2a). % A statistically significant difference was found between the RYGB and SADI-S groups (p < 0.01).
Fig. 2
a forest plot of vitamin D level, b forest plot of vitamin D deficiency, c forest plot of vitamin B12 level, d forest plot of vitamin B12 deficiency
Regarding the studies reported, the vitamin D deficiency categorically [16‐18, 20, 21, 24, 25]. For the OAGB group, a deficiency rate of 0.14 (95% CI: 0.08–0.23; I2 = 0%) was reported. For RYGB, a deficiency rate, reported by two studies, was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.18–0.38; I2 = 0%). In the SADI-S group, a pooled rate of 0.31 (95% CI: 0.15–0.52; I2 = 83%) was reported (Fig. 2b). A sensitivity analysis was done, giving a pooled rate of 0.22, by excluding Sánchez-Pernaute et al. which dropped the I2 to 0% [20]. No statistically significant difference was found between groups (p = 0.08).
Vitamin B12
Of the 15 included studies, 12 examined Vitamin B12 outcomes, four reported continuous data, and five provided categorical data on deficiency rates. In studies assessing mean Vitamin B12 levels [21, 22, 26, 27, 28]. For the OAGB group, the presented pooled mean was 341.10 pg/mL (95% CI: 265.66–416.53; I2 = 94%), with heterogeneity eliminated (I2 = 0%) upon exclusion of Salama et al. (2023), with pooled mean 381.10 pg/mL (95% CI: 351.42–412.50; I2 = 94%) [28]. In the RYGB group, the reported pooled mean was 393.15 pg/mL (95% CI: 345.09–441.21; I2 = 50%). One study reported a mean of 421 pg/mL (95% CI: 335.72–506.28) for the SADI-S group [28] (Fig. 2c). There were no significant differences between the three groups (p = 0.35), even after the sensitivity analysis was done (p = 0.68).
Regarding the studies reported, the vitamin B12 deficiency categorically [16‐18, 21, 24, 25], a deficiency rate of 0.07 (95% CI: 0.03–0.15; I2 = 0%) in the OAGB group. In contrast, the RYGB group reported a rate of 0.15 (95% CI: 0.02–0.67; I2 = 67%). For SADI-S, a pooled rate of 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01–0.0.9; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 2d). There were no significant differences between the three groups (p = 0.25).
Albumin
Out of the 15 included studies, 5 evaluated albumin as a continuous outcome [21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28]. For OAGB, the reported pooled mean albumin level was 3.77 g/dL (95% CI: 3.55–4.00; I2 = 77.4%), which dropped by excluding Debs et al. (I2 = 0) [21]. For RYGB, the reported pooled mean was 3.86 g/dL (95% CI: 3.57–4.15; I2 = 89.8%). In the SADI-S group, the reported pooled mean was 3.7 g/dL (95% CI: 3.51–3.90; I2 = 86.2%) (Fig. 3a). No statistically significant difference in continuous albumin levels was observed between the three groups (p = 0.67).
Fig. 3
a forest plot of albumin level, b forest plot of albumin deficiency, c forest plot of calcium deficiency, d forest plot of anemia incidence
In the analysis of categorical data (albumin deficiency), Five studies were included [16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25]. For OAGB, the reported pooled deficiency rate was 0.07 (95% CI: 0.03–0.14; I2 = 0). For RYGB, the reported rate was 0.09 (95% CI: 0.04–0.18; I2 = 0). In the SADI-S group, the reported pooled rate was 0.14 (95% CI: 0.09–0.23; I2 = 24) (Fig. 3b). No statistically significant difference was found between groups (p = 0.23).
Calcium
Three studies reported calcium deficiency as categorical data [16, 18, 20, 25]. Two studies reported a pooled deficiency rate of 0.15 (95% CI: 0.09–0.24; I2 = 0) in RYGB [16, 25]. In addition, the pooled deficiency rate was 0.18 (95% CI: 0.09–0.32; I2 = 0%) in the SADI-S group (Fig. 3c). There was no significant difference between RYGB and SADI-S (p = 0.52).
Anemia
Out of the 15 included studies, 6 evaluated anemia incidence [16, 18, 20, 25, 26, 31]. The OAGB group yielded a pooled rate of anemia of 0.26 (95% CI: 0.11–0.51; I2 = 84), which dropped by excluding Wilczyński et al. (2022) with a pooled rate of 0.17 (95% CI: 0.08–0.33; I2 = 43) [26]. The RYGB group yielded a pooled rate of anemia of 0.31 (95% CI: 0.20–0.45; I2 = 45). In addition, the SADI-S group yielded a pooled rate of 0.26 (95% CI: 0.03–0.8; I2 = 90), and showed persistent heterogeneity with sensitivity analysis (Fig. 3d). No significance was detected between different procedure groups (P = 0.9).
Iron
Out of the 15 included studies, 3 evaluated iron levels [20, 22, 26, 28]. For OAGB, the reported pooled mean was 11.89 μmol/L (95% CI: 10.53–13.24; I2 = 0). For RYGB, the reported mean was 12.15 μmol/L (95% CI: 10.34–14.62). In the SADI-S group, the reported pooled mean was 12.22 μmol/L (95% CI: 10.34–14.09; I2 = 38.4) (Fig. 4a). No statistically significant difference was observed between the OAGB, RYGB, and SADI-S groups in terms of continuous iron levels (p = 0.95).
Fig. 4
a forest plot of iron level, b forest plot of iron deficiency (c) forest plot of (d) forest plot of
In the analysis of categorical data (iron deficiency) [20, 24, 25]. For OAGB, the reported deficiency rate was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.05–0.23). For RYGB, the reported rate was 0.17 (95% CI: 0.07–0.34). In the SADI-S group, the reported a pooled rate was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.22–0.42; I2 = 0) (Fig. 4b). A statistically significant difference in iron deficiency rates was found between the three groups (p = 0.025), with a significant difference between OAGB and SADI-S (p = 0.0106).
Ferritin
Three studies reported ferritin deficiency as categorical data [20, 21, 45]. Two studies reported a pooled deficiency rate of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.17–0.36; I2 = 0) in RYGB. In addition, the deficiency rate was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.05–0.23) in the OAGB group, and 0.33 (95% CI: 0.22–0.46) In the SADI-S group (Fig. 4c).
Zinc
Three studies evaluated Zinc deficiency as categorical data [16, 21, 45]. The pooled deficiency rate was 0.09 (95% CI: 0.02–0.37; I2 = 0%) in the RYGB group and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.44–0.66; I2 = 0%) in the SADI-S group (Fig. 4d). The difference between RYGB and SADI-S was statistically significant (p < 0.01).
Other Bariatric Revisional Surgeries
Other revisional bariatric procedures have been less extensively investigated in the literature. In a study by Hany et al. [29], banded versus non-banded LSG showed no significant differences in nutritional deficiencies, including calcium, ferritin, vitamin D, vitamin B12, albumin, and hemoglobin, after two years of follow-up (p ≥ 0.110). Similarly, Andalib et al. reported that while biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch BPD-DS was linked to a higher, though statistically insignificant, rate of protein-calorie malnutrition compared to re-sleeve gastrectomy, RYGB, and single-anastomosis duodenal switch (SADS) (P = 0.381), re-sleeve had similar malnutrition rates to RYGB and SADS [23]. Homan et al. compared nutritional outcomes between BPD-DS and RYGB. Anemia occurred in 45% of BPD-DS patients versus 29% after RYGB, calcium deficiency in 14% versus 21%, and zinc deficiency in 27% versus none. Vitamin D deficiency was present in 55% of BPD-DS patients compared with 21% after RYGB, while no patients in either group developed vitamin B12 deficiency [16].
Discussion
LSG is among the most commonly performed metabolic surgeries. As such, postoperative nutritional challenges are anticipated, necessitating long-term clinical follow-up. Studies report that approximately 15–20% of patients undergoing LSG require revisional surgery due to various factors, including technical complications, persistent nutritional deficiencies, or inadequate weight loss outcomes [7, 8]. Revisional bariatric surgeries have been steadily increasing since 2011, particularly in specialized centers in the USA and subsequently around the world [32]. With the increasing prevalence of bariatric surgery, several secondary procedures have been developed to enhance outcomes and address limitations of earlier techniques. Among these, OAGB and SADI-S have gained popularity. These procedures are favored for their technical simplicity, shorter operative times, preservation of a larger gastric remnant, and their ability to achieve effective weight loss [9].
In our systematic review, we included 15 studies [16‐27, 28, 29, 30] which state that OAGB already represents the single largest revision category (388/1,049 patients, 36.9%), superior of RYGB (303/1,049, 28.9%) and SADI-S (237/1,049, 22.6%), indicating a shift towards single-anastomosis approaches in the included studies. However, it is important to note that this distribution reflects only the subset of literature focused on nutritional outcomes after revision and should not be interpreted as a representation of the global tendency in all revisional bariatric practices.
OAGB, the most represented revisional surgery in our systematic review, involves the creation of a long tubular gastric pouch anastomosed to a jejunal loop approximately 150–200 cm distal to the ligament of Treitz [33]. This configuration partially bypasses the duodenum while preserving some of its absorptive function. However, deficiencies in vitamin B12 and iron remain concerns. When the biliopancreatic limb exceeds 200 cm, there is an increased risk of protein-calorie malnutrition [34].
Anzeige
RYGB entails the formation of a small gastric pouch, with a biliopancreatic limb and an alimentary limb. This bypasses the duodenum and proximal jejunum, which are essential for the absorption of calcium and vitamin B12. In cases where the biliopancreatic limb is longer, fat-soluble vitamin deficiencies may also occur. Patients typically require lifelong multivitamin supplementation, including calcium, vitamin D, and B12 [35, 36].
SADI-S, the third most represented technique, combines a vertical sleeve gastrectomy with a duodeno-ileal anastomosis approximately 250–300 cm proximal to the ileocecal valve. This significantly shortens the common channel, where most micronutrient absorption occurs. As a result, SADI-S is associated with the highest incidence of fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K), iron, and protein deficiencies. Management involves high-dose fat-soluble vitamin supplementation, 60–80 g of protein daily, and 65–100 mg of iron, vitamin B12, and trace elements [37]. Most of the included studies in our review reported the use of supplementation regimens to address these nutritional deficiencies [17, 18, 20, 22‐29]. However, the occurrence of multiple deficiencies may still arise, either due to patient non-compliance or as an inherent consequence of the surgical technique.
In accordance, Abedalqader et al. demonstrated that OAGB is increasingly adopted in high-risk patients with lower tolerance for severe malabsorption and can be safely used in elderly and vegan individuals, while SADI-S may be reserved for super-obese patients who can adhere to intensive nutritional follow-up [38]. Different metabolic and bariatric surgeries can alter gastrointestinal anatomy in distinct ways, which impacts how nutrients are absorbed. These surgical variations lead to specific nutritional deficiencies for according to each technique and influence the amount of supplementation required postoperatively.
Accordingly, the included studies reported that all patients were prescribed a multivitamin protocol [17, 18, 20, 22‐29], except in the studies by Chiappetta et al. Debs et al. and Gallucci et al. [19, 21, 31], highlighting the importance of standardized supplementation protocols and rigorous methodology in revisional bariatric surgery. These findings align with the nutritional outcomes and deficiencies highlighted in our systematic review, emphasizing the impact of surgical technique, the necessity of multivitamin prescription, and the importance of assessing patient compliance.
The American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) recommends that all patients preparing for MBS undergo a thorough preoperative evaluation of their nutritional health, which includes checking micronutrient levels such as thiamine, folic acid, vitamin B12, vitamins A, E, D, and K, along with calcium, iron, zinc, and copper. This evaluation not only detects and allows for correction of existing deficiencies but also provides a baseline for postoperative comparison [39]. Moreover, the presence of preoperative micronutrient deficiencies has been shown to predict their persistence following surgery [40].
To ensure reliable results, we examined the authorship of included studies to identify potential data overlaps. For instance, Basha et al. and Salama et al. shared six authors and analyzed the same SADI-S versus OAGB cohorts at different follow-up intervals [22, 28], while Dijkhorst et al. (2018) and Dijkhorst et al. (2021) used the same Dutch multicenter registry with extended follow-up [18, 25]. To avoid duplication and skewed effect estimates, we included only the most recent report from each pair. Although this reduced the sample size, it enhanced the validity of our findings.This methodological refinement underscores the importance of meticulously reviewing included studies in systematic reviews. We also propose using co-author network graphs as a helpful tool for identifying potential overlaps in study populations [41]
Vitamin D is among the micronutrient deficiencies that commonly arise after MBS, with significant implication on bone health and the potential to cause long-term complications. Vitamin D depends on bile salts for its passive absorption in the jejunum and ileum. Since MBS result in anatomical alterations of the GI tract, they disrupt efficient absorption of vitamin D [42]. In our analysis, the vitamin D deficiency rate was numerically higher in the RYGB group (27%) compared to the OAGB group (14%), although this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.08). The higher rate observed after RYGB may be explained by its anatomical configuration, as bypassing the duodenum and proximal jejunum limits adequate mixing of vitamin D with bile salts, thereby hindering its absorption [36].
Vitamin B12 deficiency commonly arises after MBS due to reduced stomach volume thereby, reduced gastric acid and intrinsic factor secretion, which are both essential for B12 absorption [43]. Pooled analysis of deficiency rates showed lower rates in the SADI-S (3%) and OAGB (7%) groups compared to RYGB (15%). However, these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.25). This is attributed to the complete bypass of stomach and proximal small bowel in the RYGB procedure, where the intrinsic factor is produced and vitamin B12 is absorbed. However, OAGB and SADI-S may preserve larger portion of the stomach so some intrinsic factor is still produced [17].
Across the studies included in this review, no statistically significant differences in mean serum iron levels were identified between the various bariatric revision procedures. However, categorical assessments of deficiency revealed a different pattern. Patients undergoing SADI-S exhibited higher rates of iron deficiency compared to those who underwent OAGB. (p = 0.0106). OAGB was more frequently associated with the lowest rates of iron deficiency (p = 0.025), suggesting it may have a comparatively lesser impact on iron stores or absorption.
Calcium deficiency remains a clinically relevant postoperative issue following both RYGB and SADI-S procedures. Although the studies reported small differences in the rate of calcium deficiency, none reached statistical significance [16, 20, 25]. These results highlight the importance of long-term monitoring of calcium levels and bone mineral density, and the necessity of patient adherence to supplementation protocols.
No significant differences in mean serum albumin levels were noted between revision procedures. However, a slightly increased incidence of hypoalbuminemia was observed in patients who underwent the SADI-S procedure [16, 20, 21, 24, 25]. While this did not reach statistical significance, it may reflect a tendency toward greater protein hypoabsorption.
There were no significant differences in anemia rates detected between the different revisional procedures (P = 0.92). The OAGB group demonstrated the lowest anemia incidence of 17% (95% CI: 0.08–0.33; I2 = 43). These findings suggest that anemia remains a shared concern across revision types, potentially influenced by differing follow-up durations, supplementation adherence, or unmeasured baseline patient characteristics.
Any revisional bariatric surgery involving a malabsorptive component may result in malnutrition with varying degrees, partly due to the altered anatomy and partly due to poor compliance of patients to proper diet and multivitamin supplements [44]. Therefore, regular monitoring of micronutrients levels is essential in post-operative management to detect any early deficiency and allow for timely intervention before long-term complications occur.
Plath et al. reported 48 cases of RYGB reversal, half of which had already undergone at least one prior bariatric revision. In 12.5% of these cases, malabsorption was the indication for reversal [45]. Similarly, Kermansaravi et al. demonstrated that the major signs and symptoms of protein-energy malnutrition were among the leading causes for OAGB reversal [46], underscoring the importance of consistent nutritional monitoring.
While the first year following bariatric surgery is critical for identifying early micronutrient deficiencies, evidence suggests that deficiencies may develop beyond this period [47], underscoring the necessity of implementing a structured, long-term monitoring strategy. The ASMBS recommends monitoring up to ten micronutrients every three months during the first postoperative year, followed by assessment every six months in the second year, and annually thereafter, irrespective of the type of procedure performed [48]. While, the British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society (BOMSS) recommends a more individualized approach, focusing on five key nutrients at three intervals within the first year while reserving additional tests for specific clinical indications or annual follow-ups [49].
While efforts were made to assess the methodological quality of the included studies, a formal evaluation of publication bias was not feasible due to the limited number of studies, which restricted the use of visualization tools like funnel plots or other standard techniques. Moderate heterogeneity was observed in several reported outcomes. This variability may be attributed to differences in study design, such as the retrospective nature of many studies, inconsistent definitions of nutritional deficiencies, variation in surgical techniques, and differing baseline patient characteristics.
Additionally, the duration of follow-up varied significantly among the included studies, which likely influenced the detection of nutritional complications. Short-term studies may underestimate late-onset issues such as progressive micronutrient depletion or chronic anemia. In contrast, cohorts with longer follow-up periods revealed deficiencies that were not evident in the early postoperative phase, underscoring the importance of long-term nutritional monitoring in this population [44].
The single-arm analyses presented are not definitive. A significant limitation of the current evidence is the lack of sufficient data to compare post-revision nutritional outcomes directly against pre-revision baseline status. This gap makes it difficult to isolate the specific impact of the revisional surgery itself from the pre-existing deficiencies caused by the initial sleeve gastrectomy. Therefore, large-scale clinical trials comparing different bariatric revision procedures from a nutritional perspective are urgently needed. These must incorporate rigorous follow-up durations and critically standardized, well-documented pre-revision baseline measurements to establish a clear starting point and ensure valid and meaningful comparisons.
In our systematic review, we aim to highlight the importance of nutritional outcomes in revisional bariatric surgery, in order to validate the overall benefits for bariatric surgery patients, not only in terms of weight loss but also in minimizing the risk of nutritional deficiencies. Given the varying incidence of these deficiencies across different revisional bariatric procedures, this concern warrants greater attention to ensure comprehensive patient care.
Conclusion
This systematic review highlights the importance of monitoring nutritional outcomes in revisional bariatric surgery after LSG. While these procedures can be effective, those with malabsorptive effects carry a higher risk of micronutrient and protein deficiencies. Despite the increasing number of revision surgeries, many studies continue to underreport or inadequately monitor nutritional status, underscoring the need for standardized follow-up protocols.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the support of the MIAX Research Lab for providing methodological guidance and feedback throughout the development of this systematic review and meta-analysis.
Declarations
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Ethical Approval
This article is based on previously published studies and does not contain any new studies involving human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Competing interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Ponce J, DeMaria EJ, Nguyen NT, Hutter M, Sudan R, Morton JM. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery estimation of bariatric surgery procedures in 2015 and surgeon workforce in the United States. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12(9):1637–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2016.08.488.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Yousseif A, Emmanuel J, Karra E, Millet Q, Elkalaawy M, Jenkinson AD, et al. Differential effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastric bypass on appetite, circulating acyl-ghrelin, peptide YY3-36 and active GLP-1 levels in non-diabetic humans. Obes Surg. 2014;24(2):241–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-013-1066-0.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Memon MA, Osland E, Yunus RM, Hoque Z, Alam K, Khan S. The effect of laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass on gastroesophageal reflux disease: an updated meta-analysis and systematic review of 5-year post-operative data from randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc. 2024;38(11):6254–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11303-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Briggs E, Kumar S, Palazzo F, Tatarian T. Revisional bariatric surgery for weight recurrence or surgical nonresponse. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg. 2023. https://doi.org/10.21037/ales-23-15.CrossRef
8.
Lyons W, Omar M, Tholey R, Tatarian T. Revisional bariatric surgery: a review of workup and management of common complications after bariatric surgery. Mini-invasive Surg. 2022;6(0):11. https://doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2021.140.
9.
Santoro G, Alfred J, Rehman A, Sheriff N, Naing H, Tandon A. Revisional bariatric surgery following sleeve gastrectomy: a meta-analysis comparing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and one anastomosis gastric bypass. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2025;107(3):180–7. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2024.0054.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Evans LA, Castillo-Larios R, Cornejo J, Elli EF. Challenges of revisional metabolic and bariatric surgery: a comprehensive guide to unraveling the complexities and solutions of revisional bariatric procedures. J Clin Med. 2024;13(11): 3104. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13113104.
11.
Abu-Abeid A, Dvir N, Lessing Y, Eldar SM, Lahat G, Keidar A, et al. Primary versus revisional bariatric and metabolic surgery in patients with a body mass index ≥ 50 kg/m(2)-90-day outcomes and risk of perioperative mortality. Obes Surg. 2024;34(8):2872–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-024-07310-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
El-Masry H, Zidan MH, Hany M, Abokhozima A. Nutritional concerns in the meta-analysis comparing SADI and OAGB as revisional procedures following sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg. 2025;35(3):1178–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-025-07684-0.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. bmj. 2019;366. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898.
14.
Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2000.
15.
Schwarzer G. meta: An R package for meta-analysis. R news. 2007;7(3):40–5.
16.
Homan J, Betzel B, Aarts EO, van Laarhoven KJ, Janssen IM, Berends FJ. Secondary surgery after sleeve gastrectomy: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(4):771–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2014.09.029.
17.
Ceha CMM, van Wezenbeek MR, Versteegden DPA, Smulders JF, Nienhuijs SW. Matched short-term results of SADI versus GBP after sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg. 2018;28(12):3809–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-018-3415-5.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Dijkhorst PJ, Boerboom AB, Janssen IMC, Swank DJ, Wiezer RMJ, Hazebroek EJ, et al. Failed sleeve gastrectomy: single anastomosis duodenoileal bypass or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass? A multicenter cohort study. Obes Surg. 2018;28(12):3834–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-018-3429-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Chiappetta S, Stier C, Scheffel O, Squillante S, Weiner RA. Mini/one anastomosis gastric bypass versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as a second step procedure after sleeve gastrectomy-a retrospective cohort study. Obes Surg. 2019;29(3):819–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-018-03629-y.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Sánchez-Pernaute A, Rubio M, Pérez N, Marcuello C, Torres A, Pérez-Aguirre E. Single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass as a revisional or second-step operation after sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020;16(10):1491–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2020.05.022.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Debs T, Petrucciani N, Kassir R, Juglard G, Gugenheim J, Iannelli A, et al. Laparoscopic conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to one anastomosis gastric bypass for weight loss failure: mid-term results. Obes Surg. 2020;30(6):2259–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-020-04461-z.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Bashah M, Aleter A, Baazaoui J, El-Menyar A, Torres A, Salama A. Single anastomosis duodeno-ileostomy (SADI-S) versus one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB-MGB) as revisional procedures for patients with weight recidivism after sleeve gastrectomy: a comparative analysis of efficacy and outcomes. Obes Surg. 2020;30(12):4715–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-020-04933-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Andalib A, Alamri H, Almuhanna Y, Bouchard P, Demyttenaere S, Court O. Short-term outcomes of revisional surgery after sleeve gastrectomy: a comparative analysis of re-sleeve, Roux en-Y gastric bypass, duodenal switch (Roux en-Y and single-anastomosis). Surg Endosc. 2021;35(8):4644–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07891-z.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Pizza F, D’Antonio D, Carbonell Asíns JA, Lucido FS, Tolone S, Docimo L, et al. One anastomosis gastric bypass after sleeve gastrectomy failure: does a single procedure fit for all? Obes Surg. 2021;31(4):1722–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-020-05191-y.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Dijkhorst PJ, Al Nawas M, Heusschen L, Hazebroek EJ, Swank DJ, Wiezer RMJ, et al. Single anastomosis duodenoileal bypass or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after failed sleeve gastrectomy: medium-term outcomes. Obes Surg. 2021;31(11):4708–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-021-05609-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Wilczyński M, Spychalski P, Proczko-Stepaniak M, Bigda J, Szymański M, Dobrzycka M, et al. Comparison of the long-term outcomes of RYGB and OAGB as conversion procedures after failed LSG - a case-control study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2022;26(11):2255–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-022-05395-w.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Hany M, Zidan A, Elmongui E, Torensma B. Revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus revisional one-anastomosis gastric bypass after failed sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obes Surg. 2022;32(11):3491–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-022-06266-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Hany M, Ibrahim M, Zidan A, Agayaby ASS, Aboelsoud MR, Gaballah M, et al. Two-year results of the banded versus non-banded re-sleeve gastrectomy as a secondary weight loss procedure after the failure of primary sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obes Surg. 2023;33(7):2049–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-023-06598-z.
29.
Salama AF, Baazaoui J, Shahid F, Singh R, Torres AJ, Bashah MM. Comparative analysis of 5-year efficacy and outcomes of single anastomosis procedures as revisional surgery for weight regain following sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Endosc. 2023;37(10):7548–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10234-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Nejadghaderi SA, Balibegloo M, Rezaei N. The cochrane risk of bias assessment tool 2 (RoB 2) versus the original RoB: a perspective on the pros and cons. Health Sci Rep. 2024;7(6):e2165. https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.2165.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Gallucci P, Marincola G, Pennestrì F, Procopio PF, Prioli F, Salvi G, et al. One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OABG) vs. single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (SADI) as revisional procedure following sleeve gastrectomy: results of a multicenter study. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2024;409(1):128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03306-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
English WJ, DeMaria EJ, Hutter MM, Kothari SN, Mattar SG, Brethauer SA, et al. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery 2018 estimate of metabolic and bariatric procedures performed in the United States. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020;16(4):457–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2019.12.022.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Carbajo M, García-Caballero M, Toledano M, Osorio D, García-Lanza C, Carmona JA. One-anastomosis gastric bypass by laparoscopy: results of the first 209 patients. Obes Surg. 2005;15(3):398–404. https://doi.org/10.1381/0960892053576677.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Ahuja A, Tantia O, Goyal G, Chaudhuri T, Khanna S, Poddar A, et al. MGB-OAGB: effect of biliopancreatic limb length on nutritional deficiency, weight loss, and comorbidity resolution. Obes Surg. 2018;28(11):3439–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-018-3405-7.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Gasteyger C, Suter M, Gaillard RC, Giusti V. Nutritional deficiencies after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity often cannot be prevented by standard multivitamin supplementation. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;87(5):1128–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/87.5.1128.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Diab A-RF, Sujka JA, McCaskey A, Thompson A, Elnagi A, Docimo S, et al. A meta-analysis comparing RYGB with long biliopancreatic limb (BPL) versus long alimentary limb (AL) in groups with equal or nearly equal combined bypass lengths (combined BPL and AL lengths): does switching seats enhance weight loss? Obes Surg. 2024;34(12):4531–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-024-07556-z.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Sánchez-Pernaute A, Herrera MÁR, Ferré NP, Rodríguez CS, Marcuello C, Pañella C, et al. Long-term results of single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S). Obes Surg. 2022;32(3):682–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-021-05879-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Abedalqader T, Jawhar N, Gajjar A, Portela R, Perrotta G, El Ghazal N, et al. Hypoabsorption in bariatric surgery: is the benefit worth the risk? Medicina (Kaunas). 2025;61(3): 398. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61030398.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Parrott J, Frank L, Rabena R, Craggs-Dino L, Isom KA, Greiman L. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Integrated Health Nutritional Guidelines for the Surgical Weight Loss Patient 2016 update: micronutrients. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13(5):727–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2016.12.018.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Ben-Porat T, Elazary R, Yuval JB, Wieder A, Khalaileh A, Weiss R. Nutritional deficiencies after sleeve gastrectomy: can they be predicted preoperatively? Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(5):1029–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2015.02.018.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Acedo FJ, Barroso C, Casanueva C, Galán JL. Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: an empirical and network analysis. J Manag Stud. 2006;43(5):957–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00625.x.CrossRef
Lombardo M, Franchi A, Biolcati Rinaldi R, et al. Long-term iron and vitamin B12 deficiency are present after bariatric surgery, despite the widespread use of supplements. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094541.
44.
Wali MH, Bekova K, Abdulla N, et al. Adherence to nutritional supplementation, follow-up care, and lost to follow-up in post bariatric surgery patients. Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad : JAMC. 2024;36(2):417–26. https://doi.org/10.55519/jamc-02-12599.
45.
Plath L, Vannijvel M, Okkema S, Deleus E, Lloyd A, Lo Menzo E, et al. Reversal of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a multi-centric analysis of indications, techniques, and surgical outcomes. Obes Surg. 2025;35(2):471–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-024-07650-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Kermansaravi M, Shahmiri SS, Davarpanah Jazi AH, Valizadeh R, Weiner RA, Chiappetta S. Reversal to normal anatomy after one-anastomosis/mini gastric bypass, indications and results: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2021;17(8):1489–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2021.04.013.CrossRefPubMed
Osland E, Powlesland H, Guthrie T, Lewis CA, Memon MA. Micronutrient management following bariatric surgery: the role of the dietitian in the postoperative period. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(Suppl 1):9. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.06.04.CrossRef
49.
O’Kane M, Parretti HM, Pinkney J, Welbourn R, Hughes CA, Mok J, et al. British obesity and metabolic surgery society guidelines on perioperative and postoperative biochemical monitoring and micronutrient replacement for patients undergoing bariatric surgery—2020 update. Obes Rev. 2020;21(11): e13087. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13087.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Bei Fragilitätsfrakturen im Alter kommt es auf weit mehr an als auf die anatomische Rekonstruktion. Die Dresdner Orthopädin Dr. Anne Postler zeigte beim Ortho Trauma Update, was für die Versorgung wichtig ist: vom OP-Timing über die Delirprävention bis hin zur Osteoporosetherapie.
6-Jahres- und erste 7-Jahres-Daten der Evolut-Low-Risk-Studie deuten etwas überraschend darauf hin, dass der Re-Interventionsbedarf nach einer Transkatheter-Aortenklappen-Implantation (TAVI) über die Zeit im Vergleich mit einem herzchirurgischen Vorgehen zunimmt. Bzgl. des Risikos für Tod oder schweren Schlaganfall schneiden beide Verfahren dagegen weiter vergleichbar ab.
Gedanken an eine Selbsttötung gehen Ärztinnen und Ärzten vergleichsweise häufig durch den Kopf. Hilfe wäre möglich, wird aber selten gesucht. Warum eigentlich?
An Morbus Crohn Erkrankte, die unter 35 Jahre alt sind, scheinen unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen von einer frühzeitigen Ileozökalresektion zu profitieren. Bis zu 50 % erreichen damit eine zehn Jahre anhaltende therapiefreie Remission.
