4.4 Article

Internal Hernia After Laparoscopic Antecolic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Journal

OBESITY SURGERY
Volume 25, Issue 11, Pages 2106-2111

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-015-1672-0

Keywords

Bariatric surgery; Gastric bypass; Internal hernia; Morbid obesity; Complications; Petersen

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We evaluated the incidence and presentations of internal hernias (IH) after laparoscopic antecolic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) at our institution. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 594 patients who underwent laparoscopic antecolic RYGB at our institution between December 2004 and December 2010. Five hundred ninety-four patients underwent laparoscopic antecolic RYGB with a mean follow-up of 50.5 months. Thirty-six patients developed 37 IH (6.2 %) requiring surgical intervention. Mean age of IH patients was 36.9 years. Thirty-one out of 36 were female. Mean preoperative BMI was 44.3 Kg/m(2). The mean time of presentation after their RYGB was 25.9 months. The mean % excess body weight loss at time of presentation was 54.0 %. Twenty-five out of 37 of IH occurred at Petersen's space; 9/37 IH occurred under the jejunojejunostomy; three patients had hernias at both locations. Mesenteric swirling was the most common CT scan finding in 20/36 (55.6 %). Six out of 36 CT were initially read as normal; however, on retrospective review by a radiologist, abnormalities indicating IH were found in 4/6. Patients presented with different degrees of acuity: 6/37 with chronic abdominal pain and 28/37 with acute abdominal pain. Bowel necrosis was found in 3/37. IH is a serious and potentially fatal complication of RYGB. Presentation can vary from chronic abdominal pain to bowel necrosis. CT is helpful in providing diagnosis; however, careful attention to the specific signs of small bowel volvulus, such as mesenteric swirl sign, should be given. IH should be considered in RYGB patients who present with even vague symptoms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available