4.4 Article

Surgical revision of loop (mini) gastric bypass procedure: multicenter review of complications and conversions to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2006.09.012

关键词

Mini-gastric bypass; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The claim that the mini-gastric bypass (MGB) procedure with its loop gastrojejunostomy is safer and equally effective to the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) procedure has been promoted before validation. Rumors of unreported complications and the accuracy of follow-up are additional concerns. This study was undertaken to identify MGB patients who require or required revisional surgery at 5 hospitals within the region of the United States where the MGB procedure originated to assess the claim that revision to RYGB is rarely needed. Methods: The databases of 5 medical centers were retrospectively searched to identify patients undergoing surgical revision after a MGB procedure, all of which had been done elsewhere. Results: A total of 32 patients were identified who presented with complications after undergoing an MGB procedure and required or require revisional surgery. The complications included gastrojejunostomy leak in 3, bile reflux in 20, intractable marginal ulcer in 5, malabsorption/malnutrition in 8, and weight gain in 2. Of the 32 patients, 21 required conversion to RYGB and an additional 5 have planned revisions in the future. Also, 2 patients were treated with Braun enteroenterostornies and 4 required 1 or more abdominal explorations. Conclusions: The results of this preliminary review have confirmed that MGB does require revision in some patients and that conversion to RYGB is a common form of revision. A national registry to record the complications and number of revisions is proposed to gain insight into the need for revision after MGB and other nontraditional bariatric procedures. (Surg Obes Relat Dis 2007;3: 37-41.) (C) 2007 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. All rights reserved.

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