Redo Surgery after Failed Open VBG: Laparoscopic Minigastric Bypass versus Laparoscopic Roux en Y Gastric Bypass-Which Is Better?

IF 1.3 Q3 SURGERY Minimally Invasive Surgery Pub Date : 2016-01-01 Epub Date: 2016-05-29 DOI:10.1155/2016/8737519
Tamer M S Salama, Karim Sabry
{"title":"Redo Surgery after Failed Open VBG: Laparoscopic Minigastric Bypass versus Laparoscopic Roux en Y Gastric Bypass-Which Is Better?","authors":"Tamer M S Salama,&nbsp;Karim Sabry","doi":"10.1155/2016/8737519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background. Long-term studies have reported that the rate of conversion surgeries after open VBG ranged from 49.7 to 56%. This study is aiming to compare between LMGB and LRYGB as conversion surgeries after failed open VBG with respect to indications and operative and postoperative outcomes. Methods. Sixty patients (48 females and 12 males) presenting with failed VBG, with an average BMI of 39.7 kg/m(2) ranging between 26.5 kg/m(2) and 53 kg/m(2), and a mean age of 38.7 ranging between 24 and 51 years were enrolled in this study. Operative and postoperative data was recorded up to one year after the operation. Results. MGB is a simple procedure that is associated with short operative time and low rate of complications. However, MGB may not be applicable in all cases with failed VBG and therefore RYGB may be needed in such cases. Conclusion. LMGB is a safe and feasible revisional bariatric surgery after failed VBG and can achieve early good weight loss results similar to that of LRYGP. However, the decision to convert to lap RYGB or MGB should be taken intraoperatively depending mainly on the actual intraoperative pouch length. </p>","PeriodicalId":45110,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2016/8737519","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8737519","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Background. Long-term studies have reported that the rate of conversion surgeries after open VBG ranged from 49.7 to 56%. This study is aiming to compare between LMGB and LRYGB as conversion surgeries after failed open VBG with respect to indications and operative and postoperative outcomes. Methods. Sixty patients (48 females and 12 males) presenting with failed VBG, with an average BMI of 39.7 kg/m(2) ranging between 26.5 kg/m(2) and 53 kg/m(2), and a mean age of 38.7 ranging between 24 and 51 years were enrolled in this study. Operative and postoperative data was recorded up to one year after the operation. Results. MGB is a simple procedure that is associated with short operative time and low rate of complications. However, MGB may not be applicable in all cases with failed VBG and therefore RYGB may be needed in such cases. Conclusion. LMGB is a safe and feasible revisional bariatric surgery after failed VBG and can achieve early good weight loss results similar to that of LRYGP. However, the decision to convert to lap RYGB or MGB should be taken intraoperatively depending mainly on the actual intraoperative pouch length.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
打开VBG失败后重做手术:腹腔镜小胃旁路与腹腔镜Roux en Y胃旁路-哪个更好?
背景。长期研究报道,开放VBG后的转换手术率从49.7%到56%不等。本研究旨在比较LMGB和LRYGB作为开放性VBG失败后的转换手术在适应证、手术和术后结果方面的差异。方法。60例患者(48名女性,12名男性)表现为VBG失败,平均BMI为39.7 kg/m(2),范围在26.5 kg/m(2)至53 kg/m(2)之间,平均年龄为38.7,范围在24至51岁之间。手术和术后数据记录至术后一年。结果。MGB手术简单,手术时间短,并发症发生率低。然而,MGB可能并不适用于所有VBG失败的情况,因此在这种情况下可能需要RYGB。结论。LMGB是一种安全可行的VBG失败后的矫正性减肥手术,与LRYGP类似,可以获得早期良好的减肥效果。然而,术中决定是否使用RYGB或MGB主要取决于术中实际的眼袋长度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Initial Experience of Robot-Assisted Nephroureterectomy without Intraoperative Repositioning Using a New Robotic Surgical System (KD-SR-01TM). Systematic Review of Utilized Ports in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Pushing the Boundaries Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Gastrectomy in Patients with Situs Inversus Totalis: A Systematic Review. Clinical Factors to Predict Difficult Ureter during Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy. Comparison of Perioperative, Functional, and Oncological Outcomes of Transperitoneal and Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1