4.4 Article

Mid-term 4-Year Outcomes with Single Anastomosis Duodenal-Ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy Surgery at a Single US Center

期刊

OBESITY SURGERY
卷 28, 期 10, 页码 3062-3072

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-018-3358-x

关键词

SADI-S; Single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy; SIPS; Stomach intestinal pylorus-sparing surgery; Weight loss; Obesity; Outcomes; Long term; 4 years

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) is a modification of Roux-en-Y duodenal switch (RYDS). Long-term data on this operation is lacking in the literature. We reviewed our mid-term data of this RYDS modification. Purpose To analyze the outcomes with SADI-S at 4 years. Methods Data from patients who underwent a primary SADI-S procedure performed by three surgeons at a single institution from June 2013 through February 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. All revision bariatric surgeries were excluded. Regression analyses were performed for all follow-up weight loss data. Results There were 437 patients in our database. The pre-operative mean body mass index (BMI) was 49.8 +/- 8.8 kg/m(2). The 30-day complication rate was 7.7%. The 30-day readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates were 1.8, 1.3, and 0.2%, respectively. The long-term complication rate was 10.9%. Seventy-nine patients were 4 years post SADI-S surgery and follow-up was possible for 44 patients (55.7%). At 4 years, patients had an average change in BMI of 18.1 +/- 6 units with an excess weight loss (EWL) of 85.7 +/- 27.3%. At 4 years, 97.6% patients were able to maintain HbA1c < 6% with or without the use of diabetic medication. There was a statistically significant difference between most of the pre-operative and post-operative nutritional data. Conclusions SADI-S is a safe and effective procedure in both short- and mid-term data points. Diabetes resolution and weight loss appear similar to traditional RYDS and better than RYGB.

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