4.6 Article

Esophagitis evolution after sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass in consecutive cases

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07199-7

关键词

Esophagitis; GERD; Reflux; Bariatric surgery; Gastric bypass; Sleeve gastrectomy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Erosive esophagitis (EE) is related to esophageal mucosal damage caused by GERD and is implicated in the development of Barret ' s esophagus and adenocarcinoma, which incidence is rising in association with obesity. It is known that the correlation between symptoms and endoscopic findings is relatively poor, with a predictive value of only 40%. The objective of this study is to report the incidence of EE 1 year after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric bypass (GBP) in consecutive patients in order to obtain an objective parameter of the impact of the two most popular bariatric procedures on esophageal mucosa. Methods A retrospective review of a prospective database including every primary GBP and SG consecutive cases performed between January 2014 and December 2016. Esophagitis evolution was compared between patients with adequate weight loss versus those with inadequate weight loss. The comparison of baseline and 1-year EE, BMI, %EWL, and %TWL was made by using the Chi square test for categorical variables and Student t test for continuous samples. Results Two hundred and twenty-seven patients were included. GBP was performed to 35.2% (n = 80) and SG to 64.8% (n = 147). Pre- and postoperatively EE evolution in GBP decreased from 54 to 26.2% (p = 0.002) and in SG increased from 8.2 to 30% (p = 0.04) Barret ' s esophagus in GBP decreased from 7.5 to 5% (p = 0.001). No statistical difference was observed when we compared the evolution of EE in patients with adequate or inadequate weight loss in both groups. Conclusions The incidence of EE 1 year after SG is greater than GBP. Moreover, not only GBP seems to improve this condition, but also SG tends to worsen EE. These results are to be associated with GERD disease.

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

4.6
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