One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass versus Roux en Y Gastric Bypass as Salvage Techn...

• Author(s): Ribeiro, R ; Viveiros, O ; Guerra, A ; Manaças, L ; Pereira, J
• Date: 2013
• Persistent ID: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/1457
• Origin: Repositório do Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, EPE
• Subject(s): Anastomose; Bypass Gástrico; Estudos Retrospectivos
• Document Type: Other
• Language: English

Description

The classical “Roux en Y Gastric Bypass” (RYGBP) is still the standard technique between all the ones being used nowadays. The “One anastomosis gastric bypass” (OAGBP), is an evolution of the “Minigastic bypass” described by Robert Rutledge in 2001, is a well known and progressively frequent but still controversial technique. In our group, after an experience of 10 years using the RYGBP as a salvage surgery after failed gastric banding, in 132 cases, we decided to adopt the OAGBP as our preferential bariatric technique also in this situation. The theoretical main reasons for that shift are related to the increased safety, maximized weight loss, long term weight loss maintenance and reversibility of the operation. Method: Retrospectively we evaluated data of the surgical management of revisional cases for conversion, after failed or complicated gastric bands to gastric bypass. We selected the last 40 cases of each technique since May 2010. Results: All cases were performed by laparoscopy without any conversion. In both groups the conversion has been performed in one single step (17 cases, 42,5%). Data showed lower morbidity with OAGBP (2,5% against 7,5%) and better weight loss in theOAGBP cohort after a median follow up of 16months (67%against 55%) in patients revised after gastric band failure or complications. None had statistic significance (p>0,1) by the chi-square contingency table analysis.Conclusion: It seems to there is a difference in favour of OAGBP for conversion of complicated gastric bands. In this study we didn’t found statistic significance probably because of the short numbers. Prospective and more powerful studies are necessary to evaluate the benefit of the studied procedure.