4.7 Article

Endoscopic findings and their clinical correlations in patients with symptoms after gastric bypass surgery

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 58, 期 6, 页码 859-866

出版社

MOSBY, INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02310-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The aim of this study was to describe the endoscopic findings in patients with upper GI symptoms after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery and to correlate clinical features with endoscopic findings. Methods: Patients with symptoms after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass referred for endoscopy were studied. Endoscopy was performed in standard fashion with a 9.8-mm diameter endoscope. Results: Forty-nine patients underwent a total of 69 upper endoscopy procedures between January 2001 and February 2003. The most common endoscopic findings were the following: normal post-surgical anatomy (21 patients, 43%), marginal ulcer (13 patients, 27%), stomal stenosis (9 patients [19%], including 5 with a concomitant marginal ulcer), and staple-line dehiscence (8 patients [16%], including one with a marginal ulcer). Abdominal pain was the most common symptom (26 patients, 53%) and was more frequent among patients with a normal endoscopy compared with those with an abnormal endoscopy (p = 0.04). Stomal stenosis was present in 39% of patients with nausea, vomiting, or dysphagia; it was not present in any patient without these symptoms (p = 0.001). Fifteen percent of procedures performed within the first 6 postoperative months were normal, compared with 53% of those performed beyond 6 months (p = 0.02). There was no complication of endoscopy. Conclusions: Among patients with symptoms after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass presenting for endoscopy, normal post-surgical anatomy was the most common finding. Marginal ulcer was the most common abnormality. Presentation with abdominal pain and performance of endoscopy beyond the 6th post-operative month were predictive of a normal endoscopy, and lack of nausea, vomiting, and dysphagia predicted the absence of stomal stenosis.

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

4.7
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