4.4 Article

Food Intolerance After Banded Gastric Bypass Without Stenosis: Aggressive Endoscopic Dilation Avoids Reoperation

期刊

OBESITY SURGERY
卷 23, 期 7, 页码 959-964

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-013-0900-8

关键词

Banded gastric bypass; Silastic ring; Vomiting; Food intolerance; Endoscopy balloon dilation; Weight regain; Bariatric endoscopy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) controls obesity and comorbidities. However, there is no consensus on ring placement due to its complications. Surgical ring removal has been the standard approach, despite its inherent morbidity risks. Endoscopic dilation with achalasia balloon is a novel and minimally invasive option. We aimed to evaluate safety and efficacy of aggressive dilation as an outpatient procedure to treat food intolerance after banded RYGBP without stenosis; we also analyzed long-term weight regain. This prospective study included 63 patients presenting with more than four vomiting episodes per week. Therapeutic endoscopy with a 30-mm balloon (RigiflexA (R)) was performed with radioscopic guidance in the first 16 patients (25.4 %). Four dilation sessions were performed in 12 patients (19 %), three in 14 (22.2 %), two in 24 (38 %), and one in 13 (20.6 %). Complete symptom improvement was achieved in 59 patients (93.6 %), partial improvement in 2 (3.2 %), and failure in 2, leading to ring removal by laparotomy. Complications rate was 9.5 %, including three cases of bleeding, two intragastric ring erosions, and one pneumoperitoneum; all treated clinically with no need for reintervention. Mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 42.4 kg/m(2) and postoperative (before endoscopic treatment) BMI was 25.3 kg/m(2). At a mean follow-up of 46.1 months after endoscopic intervention, mean BMI was 27.8 kg/m(2). Aggressive endoscopic dilation for food intolerance is a safe and minimally invasive method that promotes symptom improvement. It avoided reoperation in 96.8 % of patients and led to a low rate of weight regain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据