Short-term results of long biliopancreatic limb Roux-en-Y gastric bypass-is it superior?
Copyright © 2020 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved..
OBJECTIVES: To compare the short-term safety and effectiveness of long biliopancreatic limb Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) to that of regular RYGB.
SETTING: Academic hospital, United States.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 89 consecutive patients who underwent RYGB between February 4, 2014 and March 12, 2015. Of these, 43 underwent long biliopancreatic limb RYGB (150 versus 60 cm, with 100-cm Roux limb).
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics including sex, preoperative body mass index, and co-morbidities were similar between the long- and regular-limb RYGB patients. Long-limb patients were older than regular-limb patients. The median length of hospital stay was similar (2 d for both groups). In the long-limb RYGB group, the mean percentage of excess body mass index loss was 50.3%, 71.4%, 75.8%, and 80.5% at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after the procedure, respectively. In the regular-limb RYGB group, the mean excess body mass index loss was 51.8%, 71.7%, 69.3%, and 68.5% during the same follow-up period. No significant difference in weight loss was observed between the 2 groups at any time point. Two patients in each group required 30-day readmission (4.7% and 4.3%). Two patients in each group required 30-day reoperation. One death occurred in the regular limb group due to a cerebrovascular accident after discharge.
CONCLUSIONS: Short-term results show that long biliopancreatic limb RYGB was not associated with a more significant weight loss after RYGB. The 2 procedures were similar in 30-day complications.
Errataetall: |
CommentIn: Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020 May;16(5):e32-e33. - PMID 32089452 |
---|---|
Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
Erscheinungsjahr: |
2020 |
---|---|
Erschienen: |
2020 |
Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:16 |
---|---|
Enthalten in: |
Surgery for obesity and related diseases : official journal of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery - 16(2020), 4 vom: 15. Apr., Seite 492-496 |
Sprache: |
Englisch |
---|
Beteiligte Personen: |
Moon, Rena C [VerfasserIn] |
---|
Links: |
---|
Themen: |
Effective |
---|
Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 27.04.2021 Date Revised 27.04.2021 published: Print-Electronic CommentIn: Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020 May;16(5):e32-e33. - PMID 32089452 Citation Status MEDLINE |
---|
doi: |
10.1016/j.soard.2019.12.021 |
---|
funding: |
|
---|---|
Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM305839381 |
---|
LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | NLM305839381 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20231225122040.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 231225s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.soard.2019.12.021 |2 doi | |
028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1019.xml |
035 | |a (DE-627)NLM305839381 | ||
035 | |a (NLM)31987734 | ||
035 | |a (PII)S1550-7289(19)31159-1 | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
100 | 1 | |a Moon, Rena C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Short-term results of long biliopancreatic limb Roux-en-Y gastric bypass-is it superior? |
264 | 1 | |c 2020 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
500 | |a Date Completed 27.04.2021 | ||
500 | |a Date Revised 27.04.2021 | ||
500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
500 | |a CommentIn: Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020 May;16(5):e32-e33. - PMID 32089452 | ||
500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
520 | |a Copyright © 2020 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
520 | |a OBJECTIVES: To compare the short-term safety and effectiveness of long biliopancreatic limb Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) to that of regular RYGB | ||
520 | |a SETTING: Academic hospital, United States | ||
520 | |a METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 89 consecutive patients who underwent RYGB between February 4, 2014 and March 12, 2015. Of these, 43 underwent long biliopancreatic limb RYGB (150 versus 60 cm, with 100-cm Roux limb) | ||
520 | |a RESULTS: Baseline characteristics including sex, preoperative body mass index, and co-morbidities were similar between the long- and regular-limb RYGB patients. Long-limb patients were older than regular-limb patients. The median length of hospital stay was similar (2 d for both groups). In the long-limb RYGB group, the mean percentage of excess body mass index loss was 50.3%, 71.4%, 75.8%, and 80.5% at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after the procedure, respectively. In the regular-limb RYGB group, the mean excess body mass index loss was 51.8%, 71.7%, 69.3%, and 68.5% during the same follow-up period. No significant difference in weight loss was observed between the 2 groups at any time point. Two patients in each group required 30-day readmission (4.7% and 4.3%). Two patients in each group required 30-day reoperation. One death occurred in the regular limb group due to a cerebrovascular accident after discharge | ||
520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Short-term results show that long biliopancreatic limb RYGB was not associated with a more significant weight loss after RYGB. The 2 procedures were similar in 30-day complications | ||
650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
650 | 4 | |a Effective | |
650 | 4 | |a Gastric bypass | |
650 | 4 | |a Long biliopancreatic limb | |
650 | 4 | |a Safety | |
650 | 4 | |a Weight loss | |
700 | 1 | |a Bornstein, Aaron |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Teixeira, Andre F |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Jawad, Muhammad A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Surgery for obesity and related diseases : official journal of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery |d 2005 |g 16(2020), 4 vom: 15. Apr., Seite 492-496 |w (DE-627)NLM16493006X |x 1878-7533 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:16 |g year:2020 |g number:4 |g day:15 |g month:04 |g pages:492-496 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2019.12.021 |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 16 |j 2020 |e 4 |b 15 |c 04 |h 492-496 |