4.4 Article

An Extended Pouch in a Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass Reduces Weight Regain: 3-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Journal

OBESITY SURGERY
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 3-10

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-019-04156-0

Keywords

Morbid obesity; Bariatric surgery; Metabolic surgery; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; RYGB; Pouch size; Pouch composition; Weight loss

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Although the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is considered a standard procedure, many variations exist in the basic design. In order to achieve more pronounced and sustainable results after RYGB, factors such as diameter of the gastroenterostomy, limb length, and pouch size are gripping points for improvement of design. Extending the pouch could improve results by altering food passage through the pouch. Objective The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effect of an extended pouch RYGB (EP-GB) and standard pouch RYGB (S-GB). Methods In total, 132 patients were randomized in two groups: 68 patients received an EP-GB (pouch length 10 cm) and 64 a S-GB (pouch length 5 cm). Subsequently, weight loss, remission of comorbidities, nutritional status, complications, quality of life, and GERD-symptoms were assessed during a follow-up of 3 years. Results During the first 2 years of follow-up, no significant differences in terms of weight loss were observed. In the third year of follow-up, the S-GB group regained 3 kg, while in the EP-GB group no weight regain was observed. The mean TBWL after 36 months in the EP-GB group was 31% versus 27% in the S-GB group (p = 0.023). Additionally, besides a better remission rate of hypertension in the EP-GB group, no differences in complications, quality of life, and GERD-symptoms were found. Conclusion Creation of an extended gastric pouch is a safe and effective modification in RYGB design. An EP-GB improves mid-term weight loss, potentially driven by a lower occurrence of weight regain.

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