4.1 Article

Impact of biliopancreatic limb length on severe protein-calorie malnutrition requiring revisional surgery after one anastomosis (mini) gastric bypass

期刊

JOURNAL OF MINIMAL ACCESS SURGERY
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 37-43

出版社

MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS & MEDIA PVT LTD
DOI: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_198_16

关键词

Biliopancreatic limb; malnutrition; mini-gastric bypass; omega loop gastric bypass; one anastomosis gastric bypass; single anastomosis gastric bypass

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: One anastomosis (mini) gastric bypass (OAGB) is believed to be more malabsorptive than Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. A number of patients undergoing this procedure suffer from severe protein-calorie malnutrition requiring revisional surgery. The purpose of this study was to find the magnitude of severe protein-calorie malnutrition requiring revisional surgery after OAGB and any potential relationship with biliopancreatic limb (BPL) length. Methods: A questionnaire-based survey was carried out on the surgeons performing OAGB. Data were further corroborated with the published scientific literature. Results: A total of 118 surgeons from thirty countries reported experience with 47,364 OAGB procedures. Overall, 0.37% (138/36,952) of patients needed revisional surgery for malnutrition. The highest percentage of 0.51% (120/23,277) was recorded with formulae using >200 cm of BPL for some patients, and lowest rate of 0% was seen with 150 cm BPL. These data were corroborated by published scientific literature, which has a record of 50 (0.56%) patients needing surgical revision for severe malnutrition after OAGB. Conclusions: A very small number of OAGB patients need surgical correction for severe protein-calorie malnutrition. Highest rates of 0.6% were seen in the hands of surgeons using BPL length of > 250 cm for some of their patients, and the lowest rate of 0% was seen with BPL of 150 cm. Future studies are needed to examine the efficacy of a standardised BPL length of 150 cm with OAGB.

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

4.1
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