4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Endoscopic Gastrojejunal Revisions Following Gastric Bypass: Lessons Learned in More Than 100 Consecutive Patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 58-66

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-018-3961-0

Keywords

Endoscopy; Dumping; Weight regain; Gastric bypass

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundWeight regain and dumping after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are long-term challenges thought to be due to dilation of the gastrojejunal anastomosis. The aim of this study was to analyze the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of endoscopic gastrojejunal revisions (EGRs) after its introduction in a tertiary bariatric surgery center.MethodsFrom January 2016 to March 2018, we reviewed the electronic records of all patients undergoing EGR with the OverStitch suturing device. Demographics, procedure details, and outcomes were recorded.ResultsThere were 107 patients (M:F=29:78) treated with 133 EGR procedures for weight regain (n=81), dumping syndrome (n=13), or both (n=13) with mean age 47.3years (R 22.0-72.9) and mean BMI 32.9kg/m(2) (R 22.2-49.8) at time of procedure. Mean procedure time was 17.8min (R 12-41), with median 1 suture used (R 1-2). No intra-operative or 30-day complications were recorded. Mean follow-up time was 9.2months (R 1-26.8). Patients lost a mean of 4.1, 5.8, and 8.0kg at 3, 6, and 12months, respectively, after the procedure. Weight loss outcomes were significantly better when two compared to one suture was used (p=0.036), and for patients with higher starting BMI (p=0.047). For patients with dumping syndrome, 90-100% had treatment response after one or two EGRs.ConclusionEGR is feasible and safe for weight regain and dumping syndrome after RYGB. It can stabilize weight regain and improve dumping symptoms. Around 20% of patients will need repeat EGR within 1year to achieve sufficient narrowing of the anastomosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available