Comparison of gastrojejunal anastomosis techniques in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: gastrojejunal stricture rate and effect on subsequent weight loss.
| Title: | Comparison of gastrojejunal anastomosis techniques in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: gastrojejunal stricture rate and effect on subsequent weight loss. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Lee S; Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery Unit, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK, sangoh01@gmail.com.; Davies AR; Bahal S; Cocker DM; Bonanomi G; Thompson J; Efthimiou E |
| Source: | Obesity surgery [Obes Surg] 2014 Sep; Vol. 24 (9), pp. 1425-9. |
| Publication Type: | Case Reports; Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't |
| Language: | English |
| Journal Info: | Publisher: Springer Science + Business Media Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 9106714 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1708-0428 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 09608923 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Obes Surg Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): | Publication: 2006- : New York : Springer Science + Business Media; Original Publication: Oxford, OX, UK : Rapid Communications of Oxford, [1991- |
| MeSH Terms: | Laparoscopy* ; Suture Techniques* ; Weight Loss*; Gastric Bypass/*methods ; Obesity, Morbid/*surgery; Anastomosis, Roux-en-Y/adverse effects ; Anastomosis, Roux-en-Y/methods ; Constriction, Pathologic/epidemiology ; Gastric Bypass/adverse effects ; Adult ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Prospective Studies ; Reoperation ; Treatment Outcome |
| Abstract: | Background: Different gastrojejunal anastomotic (GJA) techniques have been described in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). There is conflicting data on whether one technique is superior to the other. We aimed to compare hand-sewn (HSA), circular-stapled (CSA) and linear-stapled (LSA) anastomotic techniques in terms of stricture rates and their impact on subsequent weight loss.; Methods: A prospectively collected database was used to identify patients undergoing LRYGB surgery between March 2005 and May 2012. Anastomotic technique (HSA, CSA, LSA) was performed according to individual surgeon preference. The database recorded patient demographics, relevant comorbidities and the type of GJA performed. Serial weight measurements and percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) were available at defined follow-up intervals.; Results: Included in the data were 426 patients, divided between HSA (n = 174, 40.8%), CSA (n = 110, 25.8%) and LSA (n = 142, 33.3%). There was no significant difference in the stricture rates (HSA n = 17, 9.72%; CSA n = 9, 8.18%; LSA n = 8, 5.63%; p = 0.4006). Weight loss was similar between the three techniques (HSA, CSA and LSA) at 3 months (40.6% ± 16.2% vs 35.92% ± 21.42% vs 48.21 % ± 14.79%; p = 0.0821), 6 months (61.48% ± 23.94% vs 58.16 % ± 27.31% vs 60.18% ± 22.26%; p = 0.2296), 12 months (72.94% ± 19.93% vs 69.72 ± 21.42% vs 66.05% ± 17.75%; p = 0.0617) and 24 months (73.29% ± 22.31% vs 68.75 % ± 24.71% vs 69.40% ± 23.10%; p = 0.7242), respectively. The stricture group lost significantly greater weight (%EWL) within the first 3 months compared to the non-stricture group (45.39% ± 16.82 % vs 39.22 % ± 21.93%; p = 0.0340); however, this difference had resolved at 6 months (61.29% ± 18.50 % vs 59.79% ± 23.03%; p = 0.8802) and 12 months (71.59 % ± 18.67 % vs 68.69 % ± 22.19 %; p = 0.5970).; Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the rate of strictures between the three techniques, although the linear technique appears to have the lowest requirement for post-operative dilatation. The re-intervention rate will, in part, be dictated by the threshold for endoscopy, which will vary between units. Weight loss was similar between the three anastomotic techniques. Surgeons should use techniques that they are most familiar with, as stricture and weight loss rates are not significantly different. |
| References: | Arch Surg. 2003 Feb;138(2):181-4. (PMID: 12578417); Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007 Mar-Apr;3(2):176-9. (PMID: 17331806); Obes Surg. 2002 Oct;12(5):639-42. (PMID: 12448384); Obes Surg. 2010 Apr;20(4):440-6. (PMID: 19856035); Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2008 Mar-Apr;4(2):166-72; discussion 172-3. (PMID: 18069071); N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 23;351(26):2683-93. (PMID: 15616203); Obes Surg. 2011 Dec;21(12):1958-64. (PMID: 21909866); Ann Intern Med. 2003 Jan 7;138(1):24-32. (PMID: 12513041); JAMA. 2001 Sep 12;286(10):1195-200. (PMID: 11559264); JAMA. 2002 Jan 16;287(3):356-9. (PMID: 11790215); Updates Surg. 2012 Mar;64(1):25-30. (PMID: 22167407); Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Mar;9(3):228-33. (PMID: 21092760); Obes Surg. 2011 Nov;21(11):1671-5. (PMID: 21739350); JSLS. 2006 Jul-Sep;10(3):326-31. (PMID: 17212889) |
| Entry Date(s): | Date Created: 20140306 Date Completed: 20150817 Latest Revision: 20211021 |
| Update Code: | 20260130 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11695-014-1219-9 |
| PMID: | 24595472 |
| Database: | MEDLINE |
Case Reports; Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't