3.8 Article

Marginal ulcers after one anastomosis (mini) gastric bypass: a survey of surgeons

期刊

CLINICAL OBESITY
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 151-156

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cob.12186

关键词

Marginal ulcer; mini gastric bypass; one anastomosis gastric bypass; stomal ulcer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many surgeons believe that one anastomosis (mini) gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB) is associated with a high marginal ulcer (MU) rate and that this is associated with complications in a significant number of patients. The purpose of this survey was to find out the participant-reported incidence of MU after OAGB/MGB and its complications. We also aimed to understand practices in this cohort concerning prophylaxis, diagnosis, treatment and management of complications. Bariatric surgeons who perform OAGB/MGB procedures were invited to participate in a confidential, online survey using SurveyMonkey (R). A total of 86 surgeons performing OAGB/MGB procedures participated in the survey. The total number of OAGB/MGB procedures reported was 27 672, revealing 622 MU, giving an MU rate of 2.24 %. Most participants (69/84, 82.4%) routinely use proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prophylaxis, but there was variation in drugs, dosages and duration. The majority (49/85, 57.6%) of participants 'always' use endoscopy for diagnosis, and 48.1% (39/81) 'always' perform an endoscopy to ensure healing. Most (49/55) perforated ulcers were treated with laparoscopic repair +/- omentoplasty +/- drainage. Most (55/59, 93.0%) of the bleeding ulcers were managed with PPI +/- blood transfusions +/- endoscopic intervention (23/59, 39.0%). Non-healing ulcers were treated by conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in 46.5% of patients (n = 20/43). The participants did not report any MU-related mortality but described a number of risk factors for it. This survey is the first detailed attempt to understand the incidence of MU following OAGB/ MGB; its complications; and practices concerning prophylaxis, diagnosis, treatment and management of complications.

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

3.8
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