comparison of revision in roux-en-y vs mini-gastric bypass
DESCRIPTION
Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass Dr K S Kular Kular Medical Education & Research Society Kular Group of Institutes [email protected] www.kularhospital.comTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Comparison of Revision inComparison of Revision inRoux-en-Y vsRoux-en-Y vs
Mini-Gastric BypassMini-Gastric Bypass
Dr K S KularKular Medical Education & Research Society
Kular Group of [email protected]
www.kularhospital.com
![Page 2: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Complicationsafter
Bariatric Surgery
SuccessfulBariatricSurgery
![Page 3: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Objectives
1. Basics of RNY Gastric Bypass; Restrictive, Technically Demanding, Dangerous, SBO
2. Revision of RNY; Reasons, Techniques Difficullt, Doubles Risk of Complications
3. Basics of MGB; Malabsorbtive, Technically Simple, Low Risk, Very Effective
4. Revision of MGB; Reasons, Techniques Simple, Low Risk of Complications (0-2%)
![Page 4: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
1. Primary Roux en Y Gastric BypassThe Basics
1. Primarily Restrictive ( Restrictive 95%/ Fat Malabsorptive 5% )
2. Technically Demanding (500 cases Learning Curve)
3. One of Most Dangerous Bariatric Surgery (Complications/Leak)
4. Unique, Common, Deadly, Complication; SBO 10%
5. Moderately High Weight Regain / Failure Rate
![Page 5: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
RNY is the MOST Dangerous Form of Bariatric Surgery
By Every measure, in Every study RNY
Highest Death Rate, Highest Leak Rate Highest Early Complications Highest Major Complication Rate Highest Bleeding Rate, Highest Re-operation Rate Highest PE Rate....
RNY is the most dangerous form of Bariatric Surgery
References 25-100 Studies
![Page 6: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Medical Truth:Randomized Controlled Trials
The Randomized Controlled Trial, Considered
The ''Gold Standard'' For Studies Of Medical Truth
![Page 7: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Example: Recent Controlled Prospective Randomized Trial RNY JAMA 2013
Some of the Best Hospitals in the WorldControlled Prospective Randomized Trial in Relatively Healthy Pts12 months ONLY 44% normal HgbA1c levels37% serious complications 3.3% Leaks 1 patient suffered anoxic brain injury and leg amputation.
![Page 8: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Revision of RNY• Reasons: Inadequate/Excess Weight Loss/Weight
Regain/Other
• Techniques: Narrow GJ, Narrow Pouch, Lengthen Roux Limb, Convert to Sleeve, Band to Pouch, Convert to BPD, Limb-o-plasty (Gagner)
• Doubles Risk of Leak and Complications (20-40%)
![Page 9: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Techniques of Revision of RNY
Narrow GJNarrow PouchLengthen Roux LimbConvert to SleeveBand to PouchConvert to BPDLimb-o-plasty (Gagner)
![Page 10: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Dissection Near EG Junction
![Page 11: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Revision of RNYBloody, I Cannot See What They are Doing
![Page 12: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Complications after RNY and revision RNY
Early complications were recorded in 37 pts (10.2%) after RNY24 pts (22.2%) after Revision RNY p<0.01 Reoperation 12 pts (3.3%) after RNY9 pts (8.3%) after Revision p=0.03Revision 2 X Complications & Leak Rate
Obes Surg. 2011 Jun;21(6):692-8. Are laparoscopic gastric bypass after gastroplasty and primary laparoscopic gastric bypass similar in terms of results? Cadière GB, Himpens
![Page 13: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Revision of RNYBloody, I Cannot See What They are Doing
![Page 14: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Example:Increased Leaks in RNY Revisions
8 leaks (0.95%) after RNY
5 leaks (4.20%) after Revision
Revision 4 X Leak Rate
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013 Treatment of gastric Leaks after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a paradigm shift.Brolin RE, Lin JM. Department of Surgery, University Medical Center at Princeton, Princeton, New Jersey 08844, [email protected]
![Page 15: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Revision of RNYBloody, I Cannot See What They are Doing
![Page 16: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Revision of Lap Band to RNY
Revisional weight loss surgery after failed laparoscopic gastric banding
Surg Endosc. 2013 Jul 12. Tran TT et al. Division of Minimally Invasive/Bariatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA
![Page 17: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Revisions of Failed Lap BandLap Band to RNY
Early complications occurred in
11 patients (18 %)
4 Anastomotic leaks (6%) 20% late complications requiring surgery
1 in 5 Required ReoperationThere was one death (1.6%)
![Page 18: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Revision of RNYBloody, I Cannot See What They are Doing
![Page 19: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
11% Leak Rate Revising RNY
46 pts revision surgery
Leaks increased after revision (11% vs 1.2%)1 out of every 10 pts
There was a 24% (13/55) 90-day readmission rate. 1 out of every 4 pts
Revision 5 X leak RateAm J Surg. 2009 Mar;197(3):391-6. Should bariatric revisional surgery be avoided secondary to
increased morbidity and mortality? Hallowell PT, Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine, Cleveland,
![Page 20: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Revision of RNY Dissection
![Page 21: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Revision of VBG to RNYWeight regain secondary to VBG
RYGB group had a 43.5% complication rate and 1 mortality.
Complications following RYGB include: incisional hernia (13%), anastomotic leak (8.7%), respiratory failure (8.7%), fistula (8.7%), and perforation (4.35%).
Revision 40% Complication Rate 9% Leaks
J Obes. 2013;2013: Endoscopic revision (StomaphyX) versus formal surgical revision (gastric bypass) for failed vertical band gastroplasty. Bolton J, Gill RS, Al-Jahdali A, Byrns S, Shi X, Birch DW, Karmali S. Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2B7.
![Page 22: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Pouch resizing for Roux-en-Y
6 patients (30%) developed complications
Acute abdomen due to volvulus of the small bowel in 1,
Intra-abdominal abscess in 3
Pulmonary embolus in 2.
Revision 30% Complications
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013 Mar-Apr;9(2):260-7.Gastric pouch resizing for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass failure in patients with a dilated pouch. Iannelli A, Schneck AS, Hébuterne X, Gugenheim J.
![Page 23: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Review of RNY Revision 13 studies
Major Complications after Primary RNY 10-25%
Major Complications after Revision RNY 10-40+%
Successful weight loss after Primary RNY 68-82%
Successful weight loss after Revision RNY 5-40%
![Page 24: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Revision of MGB Easy and Safe;
IF You Follow the Rules
![Page 25: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Basics of MGB
Restrictive w Major Fat Malabsorption
Technically Straight forward
Low Risk (Complications/Leak)
SBO reported as 0-0.3%
Very High Weight Loss Rare Regain
Experience with >12,000 MGB Bile Reflux rare and easily Rx
Fear of Gastric Cancer unfounded by surgeons uninformed on the medical literature (Hot Dog is more dangerous)
![Page 26: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
MGB Very Effective & Very Safe
MGB SeriesRutledge U.S.A. 6,000 + (16 yr + FU)Cady France 2000 +Peraglie U.S.A. 2000 +Carbajo Spain 2000 +Noun Lebanon 1000Lee Taiwan 1000 + (RCT, 10 yr+ FU)Kular India 1000+Garcia-Caballero Spain 1000 +Musella et al. Italy 1000Others (i.e. Chevallier Paris 700,
Tacchino Rome 500, etc.)
![Page 27: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
MGB One of the Most Effective & Safest
MGB SeriesFindings in all series are the same:1. Short operation, low risk of short and long term
complications2. Excellent short and long term weight loss
75-100% EWL, (Better than BPD)3. Revisable and Reversible4. Minimal Risk of Bile Reflux in Knowledgeable Hands
![Page 28: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
One Thousand Consecutive Mini-gastric Bypass: Short- And Long-term Outcome
1,000 patients who underwent MGB from November 2005 to January 2011
Operative time and length of stay for primary vs. revisional MGB were
89 ± 12.8 min vs. 144 ± 15 min (p < 0.01) and
1.85 ± 0.8 day vs. 2.35 ± 1.89 day (p < 0.01)
Short-term complications 2.7%
Obes Surg. 2012 May;22(5):697-703. One thousand consecutive mini-gastric bypass: short- and long-term outcome. Noun et al, Department of Digestive Surgery, Hôtel-Dieu de France Hospital and University Saint Joseph Medical School, Bd Alfred Naccache, Achrafieh, BP 166830 Beirut, Lebanon. [email protected]
![Page 29: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
One Thousand Consecutive Mini-gastric Bypass: Short- And Long-term Outcome
Five (0.5%) patients presented with leak from the gastic tube but none had anastomotic leakage.
Four (0.4%) patients, all revisions with severe bile reflux Rx by stapled latero-lateral jejunojejunostomy (Braun).
Excessive weight loss occurred in four patients easily revised.
Percent excess weight loss (EWL) of 72.5% occurred at 18 months.Obes Surg. 2012 May;22(5):697-703. One thousand consecutive mini-gastric bypass: short- and long-term outcome.
Noun et al, Department of Digestive Surgery, Hôtel-Dieu de France Hospital and University Saint Joseph Medical School, Bd Alfred Naccache, Achrafieh, BP 166830 Beirut, Lebanon. [email protected]
![Page 30: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
One Thousand Consecutive Mini-gastric Bypass: Short- And Long-term Outcome
The 50% EWL was achieved for 95% of patients at 18 months and for 89.8% at 60 months.
MGB is an effective, relatively low-risk, and low-failure bariatric procedure.
In addition, it can be easily revised, converted, or reversed.
Obes Surg. 2012 May;22(5):697-703. One thousand consecutive mini-gastric bypass: short- and long-term outcome. Noun et al, Department of Digestive Surgery, Hôtel-Dieu de France Hospital and University Saint Joseph Medical School, Bd Alfred Naccache, Achrafieh, BP 166830 Beirut, Lebanon. [email protected]
![Page 31: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Controlled Prospective Randomized Trial Lee WJ, Yu P-J, Wang W, Chen TC, Wei PL, Huang MT. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y versus Mini-Gastric Bypass for the
treatment of Morbid Obesity. Ann Surg 2005 ; 242 : 20-28
RYG Bypass Mini Bypass
Op time (mns) 205 148
Early complications 20% 7.5%
Late complications 7.5% 7.5 %
EWL at one year 58.7% 64.9%
EWL at two years 60% 64.4%
![Page 32: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Randomized Controlled Prospective TrialsMGB MUCH Superior to RNY Rx Diabetes
MGB vs RNY Rx Diabetes, Two Controlled Prospective Randomized Trials
Ikramuddin S, et al. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs intensive medical management for the control of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia: the Diabetes Surgery Study randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013 Jun
Lee WJ, et al. Gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg. 2011 Feb
Resolution of Diabetes at 12 months
Sleeve 47%
RNY 44%
MGB 93%
![Page 33: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Revision of MGB
• Reasons: Inadequate/Excess Weight Loss/Weight Regain/Other
• Techniques Easy
Stay away for the gastric pouch
Steps
1. Divide the Gastro Jejunostomy
2. Advance or shorten the bypass
![Page 34: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
MGB Revision 40-50 minutes
Pouch
Anastomosis
Bowel Loop
![Page 35: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Lysis of Adhesions (No Bleeding)
![Page 36: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Divide the Gastro-Jejunostomy
![Page 37: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Divided PouchNote Location Re: a RNY Dissection
![Page 38: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Completed Revised MGB
![Page 39: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Revision of MGB
Pouch
Anastomosis
Bowel Loop
![Page 40: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Divide the Gastro-Jejunostomy
![Page 41: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Advance or Retreat the BowelStapled GastroJejunostomy
![Page 42: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Staple Closeure of Gastro-Jejunostomy
![Page 43: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Completed Revision of MGB47 minutes No Bleeding
![Page 44: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Completed Revision of MGB47 minutes No Bleeding
![Page 45: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Revisional surgery for laparoscopic Mini-gastric bypass (Dr. Lee)
1,322 patients followed for 9 yearsONLY ** 2% ** required revision
Revision Bile reflux ONLY 3 pts 0.2%
All revision procedures performed lap
No major complications. 0.0%
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2011 Jul-Aug;7(4):486-91. Revisional surgery for laparoscopic minigastric bypass. Lee WJ, Lee YC, Ser KH, Chen SC, Chen JC, Su YH. Department of Surgery, Min-Sheng General Hospital, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
![Page 46: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Revisional surgery for Mini-gastric bypass
1,322 pts 9 yrs ONLY ** 2% ** revisions
No major complications. 0.0%Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2011 Jul-Aug;7(4):486-91. Revisional surgery for laparoscopic minigastric bypass. Lee WJ, Lee
YC, Ser KH, Chen SC, Chen JC, Su YH. Department of Surgery, Min-Sheng General Hospital, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
![Page 47: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Revisional surgery for laparoscopic Mini-gastric bypass
1,322 MGBs revision surgery was to RNY in 11 (0.8%)Sleeve in 10 (0.8%)Normal in 2 (0.15%)
No major complications 0.0%
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2011 Jul-Aug;7(4):486-91. Revisional surgery for laparoscopic minigastric bypass. Lee WJ, Lee YC, Ser KH, Chen SC, Chen JC, Su YH. Department of Surgery, Min-Sheng General Hospital, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
![Page 48: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
REVISION MINI-GASTRIC BYPASS (MGB) FOR INADEQUATE WEIGHT LOSS
Rutledge USA, IFSO 2011
65 Revision Patients
%EWL Initial 56%; After revision 84%
Major Complications 1.5%
Late complications: 3 patients sustained Excess Weight Loss.
![Page 49: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Review of MGB Revision
Major Complications after Primary MGB 2-5%Major Complications after Revision MGB 0-5+%Successful weight loss after Primary MGB 76-97%Successful weight loss after Revision MGB +35-40%
![Page 50: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Conclusions
1. Basics of RNY;
Restrictive,
Technically Demanding,
Dangerous, + SBO
2. Basics of MGB;
Malabsorbtive,
Technically Simple,
Low Risk
![Page 51: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Conclusions1. Revision of RNY;
Rarely done Techniques Difficullt, Doubles Risk of Complications (15-43%)
2. Revision of MGB; Rarely needed, Techniques Simple, Low Risk of Complications (0-2%)Very Effective
![Page 52: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Surgery Can Successfully Treat Obesity and Diabetes in Both Thin and Obese Diabetic Patients
• 2013: Kular Hospital
• 6 year study T2DM patients
• Results:
• Type 2 Diabetes resolved
• 98% of MGB
![Page 53: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
MGB More Effective than BPDDr Tacchino MGB vs BPD
Weight Loss and Diabetes Resolution Following Mini-Gastric Bypass and Bilio-Pancreatic Diversion. Tacchino R.,
Rutledge R., Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy 408 pts Jan 2007 to Dec 2009 36 months follow-up Mini-Gastric Bypass (n = 164) initial BMI 46.4±9.6 or Bilio-Pancreatic Diversion (n = 244) initial BMI 46.9±7
(Tacchino’s perferred Operation)
![Page 54: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
MGB More Effective than BPDDr Tacchino MGB vs BPD
RESULTS:
Mean BMI at two years was 28.5±3.9 kg/m2 and at three years 27.4±4.5 kg/m2 after MGB
BMI at two years 32.7± 6.04 kg/ m2 and at three years 33.6±5.1 kg/m2 after BPD
One year resolution of diabetes was accomplished in:
100% in MGB group
95% in BPD group.
![Page 55: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
MGB More Effective than BPDDr Tacchino MGB vs BPD
Tacchino’s conclusions:
“Both MGB and BPD resluted in excellent weight loss, excellent resolution of co-morbities with low risk of long term complications.
The MGB was associated with greater weight loss than BPD.
Improvements in other cardiovascular risk factors and quality of life were similar after both procedures.”
![Page 56: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Unfounded FEAR Gastric CancerBillroth II Makes No Significant Difference
• 1. Gastric Cancer Declining Rapidly
• 2. GC Environmental Causes; Easily Prevented
• 3. Some studies show Small Increased Risk Probably from Ulcers / H. Pylori
• 4. Many large studies: NO increased risk
• 5. Endoscopic Screening: Not Recommended
• 6. General, Trauma & Oncologic Surgeons Use Billroth II
![Page 57: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Best Rx for Diabetes5 Objectives
1. Consider Band/Sleeve/RNY/MGB2. Best Rx DM Requires
Gastric Procedure + Duodenal Bypass3. Eliminates Band/Sleeve; Choice RNY vs MGB4. RNY Most Technically Difficult Dangerous &
Deadly form of Bariatric Surgery5. Data MGB One of the Most Effective & Safest
Rx for DM
![Page 58: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Objective 1:Consider Band/Sleeve/RNY/MGB
![Page 59: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Objective 2: Best Treatment of Diabetes Includes
Gastric Procedure + Duodenal Bypass
Data from General Surgery, Bariatric Reports, Animal Studies
![Page 60: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Objective 2: Animal Models Confirm
Duodenal Bypass Improves Effectiveness
“This study shows that bypassing Duodenum Improves T2D, independently of food intake, body weight, malabsorption, or
nutrient delivery”
The Mechanism of Diabetes Control After Gastrointestinal Bypass Surgery Reveals a Role of the Proximal Small Intestine in the Pathophysiology of Type 2 Diabetes. Rubino,); Marescaux, Jacques MD, FRCS Annals of Surgery; 244 (5): 741-749, November 2006
![Page 61: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Objective 2: Billroth I vs Billroth IIGastrectomy vs Gastrectomy + Bypass
Primary Gastric Procedure (PGP)
Vs
Combined Gastric + Bypass (CGB)
Which Leads to Greater Weight Loss?
Which Leads to Greater Resolution of Diabetes?
General Surgery Answer:
![Page 62: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Bariatric Surgeons Should Not Forget Their General Surgery Training
GS for Gastric Disease (Ca/Ulcer)
Gastrectomy ALONE 50%
Gastrectomy + Duodenal Bypass 75%
Rx T2D MUST Include Duodenal Bypass for BEST short and long term Efficacy
G.O. OUTPERFORMS G+D G.O.=Gastric Only vs G+D=Gastric + Duodenal
![Page 63: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Outcome after gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients with type 2 diabetes
• 403 gastric cancer patients with T2DM• BMI % Reduction• Duodenal Bypass:• BI: No Bypass 7.6%• BII: Bypass 11.4%
• ** 50% Improvement **
• Jong Won Kim, etal, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 135-720, South Korea, World J Gastroenterol. 2012 January 7; 18(1): 49–54.
![Page 64: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Objective 2: Gastrectomy For
Stomach Cancer on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Kang KC, Shin SH, Lee YJ, Heo YS. J Korean Surg Soc. 2012 Jun;82(6):347-55.
Department of Surgery, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
![Page 65: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Objective 2: Gastrectomy for stomach cancer on type 2 diabetes (Kang)
75 GCa Pts, 35 month FUBI vs BII Rx DMGastrectomy ALONE (i.e. Sleeve)
0% Resolved, 45% improvedGastrectomy + BII (i.e. MGB)
22% Resolved, 85% Improved
![Page 66: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Objective 2:
J Gastrointest Surg. 2012 Jan;16(1):45-51
Gastrointestinal metabolic surgery for the treatment of diabetic patients: a multi-
institutional international study.
Lee WJ, Hur KY, Lakadawala M, Kasama K, Wong SK, Lee YC.
![Page 67: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Gastrointestinal metabolic surgery for the treatment of diabetic patients (Lakadawala)
200 patients,
Gastric Bypass vs Sleeve gastrectomy
Remission of T2DM
“Gastric Bypass pts (Gastric + Bypass) lost more weight & higher diabetes remission Sleeve pts“
Bypass pts mix of MGB/RNY (per Dr. Lee)
![Page 68: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Objective 2: MGB vs Sleeve
Mini-Gastric bypass vs Sleeve Gastrectomy
for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Randomized Controlled TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
Lee WJ, Chong K, Ser KH, Lee YC, Chen SC, Chen JC, Tsai MH, Chuang
LM. Arch Surg. 2011 Feb
![Page 69: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Objective 2: Lee MGB vs SleeveRandomized Controlled Trial
Randomized controlled trial
60 moderately obese patients (body mass index >25 and <35)
Outcome was remission of T2DM (fasting glucose <126 mg/dL and HbA(1c) <6.5% without glycemic therapy)
All completed the 12-month follow-up
![Page 70: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Lee MGB vs SleeveRandomized Controlled Trial
Remission of Diabetes
** 93% ** Mini-gastric bypass
** 47% ** Sleeve gastrectomy
(P = .02)
![Page 71: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Lee MGB vs SleeveRandomized Controlled Trial
Mini-gastric bypass
lost more weight,
achieved a lower waist circumference, and
Lower glucose, HbA(1c), and
blood lipid levels than
the sleeve gastrectomy group
![Page 72: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Effectiveness of Bariatric ProceduresGastric + Duodenal BypassOutperforms Gastric Alone
G.O. Band PoorG.O. Sleeve Med HighG+D RNY HighG+D MGB High - HighestConclusions
Band & Sleeve Less Effective than RNY & MGB
![Page 73: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Objective 3: Best Rx DM Gastric Procedure + Duodenal Bypass
This Excludes Band/Sleeve
Need for Gastric Procedure +Bypass
Eliminates Band/Sleeve;
Leaves Choice RNY vs MGB
![Page 74: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Objective 4: RNY is the most
Technically Difficult, Dangerous & Deadly
form of Bariatric Surgery
100s RefsOne Recent Example
![Page 75: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
RNY: Long learning curve of 500 cases
RNY technically challenging 2,281 cases 1999 - 2011
Complications Stabilized after *500* cases Mortality rate .43%,
main causes of death PE & Leaks (.14% each)Op time & Complications significantly reduced after a
long learning curve of 500 cases Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013 Feb 11. Overcoming the learning curve of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: A 12-
year experience. El-Kadre L, Tinoco AC, Tinoco RC, Aguiar L, Santos T. Department of Surgery, São José do Avaí Hospital, Itaperuna, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
![Page 76: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Lap RNY Gastric Bypass
Med Coll Va. Postoperative Complications L-RNY
Leak 4.5%SBO 2%PE 1%Death 0.7%
Ann Surg. 2004 May; 239(5): 698–703. Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Death Following Gastric Bypass for Treatment of Morbid Obesity, Adolfo Z. Fernandez, Jr, MD et al.
![Page 77: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
RNY Bypass Surgery for Diabetes With Nonmorbid Obesity? Maybe Jun 04, 2013
Controlled Prospective Rndomized 12-months, 49% RNY pts vs 19% lifestyle pts met primary end points
BUT37% serious complications in the RNY group 2 most serious complications were anastomotic leak 3.3%!!, 1 patient suffered anoxic brain injury. Patients who underwent surgery were also more likely to have
nonserious adverse events such as nutritional deficiencies.
JAMA. 2013 Jun 5;309(21):Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs intensive medical management for the control of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia: the Diabetes Surgery Study randomized clinical trial. Ikramuddin S, Department of Surgery, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. [email protected]
![Page 78: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
RNY Bypass Surgery for Diabetes Controlled Prospective Randomized Trial
Normal HgbA1C level range from 4.5 to 6
Only 44% RNY pts HgbA1c < 6 (Cure)
BUT
37% serious complications in the RNY group
3.3% anastomotic leaks
1 patient suffered anoxic brain injury and amputation
JAMA. 2013 Jun 5;309(21):Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs intensive medical management for the control of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia: the Diabetes Surgery Study randomized clinical trial. Ikramuddin S, Department of Surgery, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. [email protected]
![Page 79: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
1 yr RNY Did NotReachNormalHgbA1c
JAMA. 2013 Jun 5;309(21):Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs intensive medical management for the control of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia: the Diabetes Surgery Study randomized clinical trial. Ikramuddin S, Department of Surgery, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. [email protected]
![Page 80: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
First report from the American College of Surgeons
Bariatric Surgery Center Network28,000 Patients
Ann Surg. 2011 Sep;254(3):410-20
Hutter MM, Schirmer BD, Jones DB, Ko CY, Cohen ME, Merkow RP, Nguyen NT.
Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
![Page 81: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
American College of Surgeons Bariatric Surgery Center Network
Outcome SG N (%) RNY N (%)
Conv to Open 9 (0.10) 207 (1.43)
30-day Mortality 1 (0.11) 21 (0.14)
1-Year Mortality 2 (0.21) 49 (0.34)
Readmission 51 (5.4) 937 (6.47)
Reoperation 28 (2.97) 728 (5.02)First report from the American College of Surgeons Bariatric Surgery Center Network28,000 Patients
![Page 82: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
American College of Surgeons Bariatric Surgery Center Network
Outcome LSG N (%) RNY N (%)Coma 0 2 (0.01)Stroke 0 5 (0.03)Cardiac Arrest 0 13 (0.09)Myocard Infarct 0 9 (0.06)DVT 1 (0.11) 21 (0.14)Pneumonia 3 (0.32) 58 (0.40)
![Page 83: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
American College of Surgeons Bariatric Surgery Center Network
Outcome SG N (%) RNY N (%)Intubation 3 (0.3) 59 (0.41)Ventilator (> 48 hrs) 0 55 (0.38)Acute Renal Failure 0 22 (0.15)UTI 5 (0.5) 104 (0.7)Wound Dehiscence 0 27 (0.19)Septic Shock 0 21 (0.14)
![Page 84: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Objective 5: MGB One of the Most Effective & Safest
Best Rx for DM
![Page 85: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Laparoscopic Roux-en-y Vs. Mini-gastric Bypass For The Treatment Of Morbid Obesity: A 10-year Experience.
Obes Surg. 2012 Dec;22(12):1827-34. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Vs. mini-gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity: a 10-year experience.
Lee WJ, Ser KH, Lee YC, Tsou JJ, Chen SC, Chen JC.
Department of Surgery, Min-Sheng General Hospital, National Taiwan University, No. 168, Chin Kuo Road, Tauoyan, Taiwan, Republic of China. [email protected]
![Page 86: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
Laparoscopic Roux-en-y Vs. Mini-gastric Bypass For The Treatment Of Morbid Obesity: A 10-year Experience.
October 2001 and September 2010, 1,657 patients who received gastric bypass surgery (1,163 for LMGB and 494 for LRYGB)
Surgical time was significantly longer for LRYGB (159.2 vs. 115.3 min for LMGB, p < 0.001).
The major complication rate was higher for LRYGB (3.2 vs. 1.8%, p = 0.07).
5 years after surgery, the mean BMI was lower in LMGB than LRYGB (27.7 vs. 29.2, p < 0.05) and
LMGB also had a higher excess weight loss than LRYGB (72.9 vs. 60.1%, p < 0.05).
Late revision rate was LRYGB 3.6% and MGB 2.8%
![Page 87: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
Laparoscopic Roux-en-y Vs. Mini-gastric Bypass For The Treatment Of Morbid Obesity: A 10-year Experience.
CONCLUSIONS:
This study demonstrates that MGB can be regarded as a SIMPLER and SAFER alternative to RNY with similar or BETTER efficacy at a 10-year experience.
![Page 88: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
Conclusions: MGB Best Rx for DM
1. Band/Sleeve/RNY/MGB2. Animal, Gen Surg and Bariatric Data:
Best Rx = Gastric + Duodenal Bypass3. Excludes Band/Sleeve4. RNY Unquestionably the Most Dangerous form of
Bariatric Surgery5. Numerous studies show MGB short safe and highly
effective; Best Choice
![Page 89: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
Bariatric Surgery Rx Type 2 Diabetes
Bariatric Surgery Has Been shown to Successfully Treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Unfortunately Failure of Bariatric Procedures Rx of T2D is reported
Operations to be considered: Band/Sleeve/RNY vs MGB
![Page 90: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
Bariatric Surgeons Should Not Forget Their General Surgery Training
• Bariatric Surgeons should Learn from General Surgery • General Surgery and T2D• Results of General Surgery for Gastric
Disease • Cancer / Ulcer
![Page 91: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
Laparoscopic Mini Gastric Bypass
Cesare Peraglie MD FACS FASCRSCLOS-Florida: Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center.
Davenport, [email protected]
SECO 2012BARCELONA SPAIN
![Page 92: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
Laparoscopic-Mini Gastric Bypass: HOFRMC
•Over 1000 Laparoscopic MGB’s have been performed at HOFRMC since 2005.
•TYPICAL DEMOGRAPHICS: AGE: 45 (14-72), BMI: 45 (30-75), ~27% DIABETIC, ~50% HTN, ~31% PREVIOUS ABDOMINAL SURGERY
•OUTCOMESOP-TIME: 62Min. (37-186), Conversion to open: 0LOS: 1 DAY or less (88%), 2 DAY (10%), 3 DAY (~2%), 4+ DAY
(<1%)Re-admission: 5% (23 hour obs. PONV in all but one) / 0.8%
90 dayLeak: 0.3%MORTALITY: 0 (HOSPITAL), 0 (PERI-OP:90D)
![Page 93: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
RNY & Small Bowel Obstruction
![Page 94: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
![Page 95: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
Every Testbook in General Surgery Warns of SBO after RNY
![Page 96: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
RNY Causes Bowel Obstruction and Death
• My family member had RNY=>SBO=>Death
• RNY SBO 2-16%
• NO Other Bariatric Surgery Has Such High Rate of Bowel Obstruction
![Page 97: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
Some RNY Surgeons Never See Bowel Obstruction after RNY
How Can this Be?
Poor Follow Up
Makes Good Results
RNY SBO 2-16%
![Page 98: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
RNY Surgeons Leave SBO to be Cleaned Up by General Surgeons
Every General Surgeon
is Now TaughtTo Look For,
Be Vigilant and Fear
Bowel ObstructionAfter RNY
Gastric Bypass
![Page 99: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
Poor Follow UpMakes Good Results
My Family Member
Who DIED
From Small Bowel Obstruction After RNY
Was Operated Upon by a
GENERAL Surgeon not a Bariatric Surgeon!
Her RNY Surgeon Does Not Know of her Death or her Bowel Obstruction
![Page 100: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
Mini-Gastric BypassBy Every Important Measure the Best Choice for Rx Type 2 DM
Compared to RNY: Efficacy/Safety
One of the Highest Efficacy of Rx T2D
Highest Safety
Lowest Death Rate
Lowest Leak Rate
Lowest Early Complication Rate
Lowest Major Complication Rate
Lowest Bleeding Rate
Lowest Re-operation Rate
Lowest PE Rate
By Every Measure and in Every Study
![Page 101: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
Lap RNY Gastric Bypass
Med Coll Va. Postoperative Complications L-RNY
Leak 4.5%SBO 2%PE 1%Death 0.7%
Ann Surg. 2004 May; 239(5): 698–703. Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Death Following Gastric Bypass for Treatment of Morbid Obesity, Adolfo Z. Fernandez, Jr, MD et al.
![Page 102: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
Lap RNY Gastric Bypass
Med Coll Va. Postoperative Complications L-RNY
Leak 4.5%SBO 2%PE 1%Death 0.7%
Ann Surg. 2004 May; 239(5): 698–703. Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Death Following Gastric Bypass for Treatment of Morbid Obesity, Adolfo Z. Fernandez, Jr, MD et al.
![Page 103: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
Patient Satisfaction
Kular Hospital Community Hospital No Advertisement: Offer Sleeve, RNY or MGB
Patients are followed
Sleeve pts frequently complain of N/V and referr fewer pats for operation
RNY Less satisfaction poor referral discouraged
MGB high satisfied and refer many patients
NOW 90% of cases are MGB
![Page 104: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
India Turns to the Sleeve
Band has come and gone
Many RNY programs
Centers across India turning to sleeve for the same reasond
![Page 105: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
Selecting an Operative ProcedureSafety and Effectiveness
Personal Experience, Animal Models, Expert Judgment, Published Data and Controlled Prospective Randomized
Trials all show:
MGB is More Effective than Sleeve \RNYMGB is Safer than Sleeve\RNY
![Page 106: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
Mini-Gastric Bypass: Excellent Results from Multiple
Surgeons
![Page 107: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
6,385 Consecutive Mini-Gastric Bypasses: 16 Years Later (Rutledge)
6,385 patients who underwent MGB from September 1997 to June 2011
Mean operative time 41 minutes and median length of stay 1 day
Early complications occurred in 4.9%.
44 (0.7%) patients had anastomotic leaks.
Three (0.05%) patients presented with dypepsia/bile reflux not responsive to medical therapy and were successfully treated by Braun side-to-side jejuno-jejunostomy.
![Page 108: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
6,385 Consecutive Mini-Gastric Bypasses: 16 Years Later (Rutledge)
Gastritis/dyspepsia/marginal ulcer was the most serious long term complication; routinely treated medically.
Excessive weight loss occurred in 1% of patients; treated by take down of the bypass.
Mean % excess weight loss (EWL) of 78%.
10 year weight regain was mean 4.9%. >50% EWL was achieved for 95% of patients at 18 months and for 92% at 60 months.
6% of patient had inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain were treated by revision, (addition of ~2 meters to the bypass).
![Page 109: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
Remember!
All Medical and Surgery Can Fail!
Bariatric Surgery Procedures are Known to Fail
Therefore
ALWAYS CHOOSE
Operation that Can Be Revised Safely!!
NEVER CHOOSE
Operation Revision is Dangerous!
![Page 110: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
Revision of MGB: Easily Done Rarely Needed
Revisional Surgery For Laparoscopic Mini-Gastric Bypass
Wei-Jei Lee, M.D., Ph.D. , Yi-Chih Lee, Ph.D., Kong-Han Ser, M.D., Shu-Chun Chen, R.N.,
Jung-Chien Chen, M.D., Yen-How Su, M.D.
Surgery for Obesity and Related DiseasesVolume 7, Issue 4 , Pages 486-491, July 2011
![Page 111: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
Revision of MGB: Easily Done Rarely Needed
January 2001 to December 2009, 1322 patients
excess weight loss and mean body mass index at 5 years after LMGB was 72.1% and 27.1 ± 4.6 kg/m2.
Of the 1322 patients, 23 (1.7%) had undergone revision surgery during a follow-up of 9 years.
The causes of revision
Malnutrition (Excess Weight Loss) in 9 cases
Inadequate weight loss in 8
Intractable bile reflux 3 out of 1,322 cases,
No patients had surgery for Internal hernia
![Page 112: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
FIRST International Consensus Conference on Mini-Gastric Bypass
Paris in October 2012.
![Page 113: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
The IFSO-EC Mini-Gastric BypassPostgraduate Course in Barcelona in April 2012 was a notable success
• As you may know we had a great slate of presenters included such experts and leaders included
• Prof Jean-Marc Chevallier, France, Prof Roberto Tacchino,Italy, Prof. Dr. Manuel Garcia-Caballero, Spain, Dr. Jean Mouiel,France, Dr. Rui Ribeiro, Dr. Cesare Peraglie, M.D., F.A.C.S., USA, Dr. Mario Musella and Dr. K S Kular M.S. from India; and others.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CCVote Or Email [email protected]
![Page 114: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
IFSO – EC Mini-Gastric Bypass Post Grad Course, April Barcelona
The countries represented included France, Italy, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, the Netherlands and India.
We were pleased that the room was near full, enthusiastic and educational.
As a follow up, the Society of MGB Surgeons is seeking to survey the present opinions of surgeons about the MGB and the other bariatric procedures.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CCVote
![Page 115: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/115.jpg)
Society of MGB SurgeonsMGB / OAGB Survey Respondents
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IFSO-MGB-ConsensusConference Or Email [email protected]
![Page 116: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/116.jpg)
Society of MGB Surgeons: Rename the Mini-Gastric Bypass?
![Page 117: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/117.jpg)
Society of MGB Surgeons MGB Post Graduate CourseMGB / OAGB Survey Respondents
20-30% of All Bariatric Surgery in France is Mini-Gastric Bypass
IFSO-EC 18+ MGB Surgeons, 16,000+ MGB procedures Performed
Society of MGB SurgeonsMGB Survey Respondents23 MGB Surgeons, 19,000 MGBs,100 surgeons, 300,000 Bariatric Procedures / year
![Page 118: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/118.jpg)
Irrational Illogical Thinking Decision-Making Errors
• Confirmation Bias (favor information that confirms preconceptions)
• Herd Behavior (group think override rational)
• “Reptilian Brain”Amygdala is part "impulsive," primitive system that triggers emotional override rational thinking
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IFSO-MGB-ConsensusConference Or Email [email protected]
![Page 119: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/119.jpg)
PRIMITIVE RESPONSE SYSTEMSMODIFY RISK ASSESSMENT
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CCVote Or Email [email protected]
![Page 120: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/120.jpg)
THE REPTILIAN BRAIN:EMOTION & DECISION MAKING
• Rational Logical Thinking:Frontal Lobe
• Amygdala Interferes with the Frontal lobe
• Primitive, Impulsive
• Irrational decision-making
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CCVote Or Email [email protected]
![Page 121: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/121.jpg)
IRRATIONAL ILLOGICAL THINKING CONFIRMATION BIAS
• Contrary Evidence =>Maintains or strengthens present beliefs
• Overconfidence in present beliefs
• Poor Decision Making
• Especially Present in Organizations, Military, Political & Social Groups
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CCVote Or Email [email protected]
![Page 122: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/122.jpg)
REPTILIAN BRAIN POOR DECISIONSFEAR LEADS TO JUDGMENT ERRORS
• Errors in Risk Assessment
• Death Airplane Crash
• Death Car Crash
• 1 in 10,000 patient / 20 years risk of gastric cancer
• Bowel Obstruction from internal hernia +16% in 15 months!
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CCVote Or Email [email protected]
![Page 123: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/123.jpg)
Surgeons Who Fear Gastric Cancer =Don't Know Much About Gastric Cancer
• Surgeons who say MGB = Bad, Because of the “Risk of Cancer”
• Don't know the Risk of Cancer in the General Population
• Don't know the risk of gastric cancer in Billroth II
• Don't Fear the Risk of Bowel Obstruction from internal hernia +16% in 5 years
• Don't Fear Esophageal Cancer after Band & Sleeve
![Page 124: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/124.jpg)
Surgeons Who Fear Gastric Cancer =Don't Know Much About Gastric Cancer
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Agree Disagree
Know About Gastric Cancer
43%
57%
I have recently reviewed the literature on gastric cancer and am very knowledgeable about the risk of gastric cancer
![Page 125: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/125.jpg)
Question Answer
H. Pylori Treatment Normalizes Risk of Gastric Cancer in Ulcer Patients.
Agree 100%
The association between H pylori infection and the development of gastric cancer is well established
Agree 100%
Gastric cancer can be prevented by treating H. Pylori, eating a diet of fresh fruit and vegetables and avoiding smoking, alcohol and nitrates in preserved foods
Agree 100%
![Page 126: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/126.jpg)
Question Answer
There are many large scale studies that show no increased risk of gastric cancer after Billroth II:
Disagree 60% !!!
Unoperated Gastric Ulcer patients have double the risk for Gastric Cancer
Agree 100%
There are some studies showing a slight increased risk of gastric cancer 20-30 years after Billroth II. But these patients had the Billroth II overwhelmingly for Ulcer Disease &Ulcer and Gastric Cancer have a common etiology; H. Pylori.
Agree 100%
![Page 127: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/127.jpg)
(Un) Popularity of the MGB
• Confusion:MGB Not Old Mason Loop Gastric Bypass
• MGB = Antrectomy and BII
• Old Mason Loop = Total Gastrectomy + BII
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IFSO-MGB-ConsensusConference Or Email [email protected]
![Page 128: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/128.jpg)
PR: STATE THE PROBLEM
• Obesity Epidemic
• History of Failure of Bariatric Surgical Procedures
• Selecting the “Ideal / BEST” Bariatric Surgical Procedure
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IFSO-MGB-ConsensusConference Or Email [email protected]
![Page 129: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/129.jpg)
Sleeve Consensus Meeting?
19 surgeons have shared their data and consensus has been sought on specific points related to sleeve only
Mean 12% acid reflux
Many showing 20% reflux
Many showing 40 % weight loss failure ( < 50 % EWL )
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CCVote Or Email [email protected]
![Page 130: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/130.jpg)
SUCCESS CRITERIA"IDEAL" WEIGHT LOSS SURGERY
![Page 131: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/131.jpg)
1. Low Risk2. Major Weight Loss3. Easily performed4. Short operative times5. Outpatient or short hospital stay6. Minimal Blood Loss7. No Need for ICU Stay8. Minimal Pain9. Very High Patient Satisfaction10. A Good "Exit Strategy"
O: OBJECTIVES, SUCCESS CRITERIA"IDEAL" WEIGHT LOSS SURGERY
![Page 132: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/132.jpg)
O: OBJECTIVES, SUCCESS CRITERIA"IDEAL" WEIGHT LOSS SURGERY11. Change Behavior & Preferences; Marked Decrease in Hunger
and Increased Satiety12. Minimal Retching and Vomiting 13. Few adhesions or hernias14. Minimal impact on Heart and Lung Function15. Low Failure Rate16. Low Cost17. Short Recovery Time18. Rapid Return to Work19. Low Risk of Pulmonary Embolus20. Durable weight loss
![Page 133: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/133.jpg)
O: OBJECTIVES, SUCCESS CRITERIA"IDEAL" WEIGHT LOSS SURGERY
21. Low Risk of Ulcer22. Fat Malabsorbtion; low cholesterol & CV risk 23. No Plastic Foreign Body 24. Easily Verifiable Results; > 10 years of Results25. Low Risk of Bowel Obstruction26. Based upon sound surgical principles 27. Independent confirmation of results28. Healthy life after surgery29. Supported by LEVEL I Evidence; RCT (Controlled Prospective
Randomized Trial)30. Block “Sweet Eater” Failures
![Page 134: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/134.jpg)
MINI-GASTRIC BYPASS
• The Mini-Gastric Bypass1997 – 2011 ; >6,000 pts, 10 yr Data; Multiple Centers, R.C.Trials
• Vertical Gastric Tube(Collis Gastroplasty)
• Gastric Bypass(Billroth II Gastro-jejunostomy)
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IFSO-MGB-ConsensusConference Or Email [email protected]
![Page 135: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/135.jpg)
MINI-GASTRIC BYPASSBASED SOUND SURGICAL PRACTICE
• Billroth II Performed over 100 years
• 16,000 Billroth II’sUSA in 2007
• Operation of choice: Trauma, Ulcers, Cancer Stomach etc.
![Page 136: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/136.jpg)
STATISTICAL ILLITERACY; "MANY DOCTORS MISUNDERSTAND MEDICAL LITERATURE"
• Example: “In the absence of a Roux limb, the long-term effects of chronic alkaline reflux are unknown.”
• REALLY? Rational vs. Reptilian Brain thinking
• Billroth II >100 years and >1,450 papers on Billroth II
Collins BJ, Miyashita T, Schweitzer M, Magnuson T, Harmon JW., Gastric Bypass; Why Roux-en-Y? A Review of Experimental Data,
Arch Surg. 2007; 142(10):1000-1003.
![Page 137: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/137.jpg)
STATISTICAL ILLITERACY; "MANY DOCTORS MISUNDERSTAND MEDICAL LITERATURE"
• Example:
“In the absence of a Roux limb,
the long-term effects of chronic alkaline reflux are unknown.”
Collins BJ, Miyashita T, Schweitzer M, Magnuson T, Harmon JW., Gastric Bypass; Why Roux-en-Y? A Review of Experimental Data,
Arch Surg. 2007; 142(10):1000-1003.
![Page 138: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/138.jpg)
GASTRIC CANCER RAPIDLY DECLINING
• The incidence of gastric cancer in the United States has
• Decreased four-fold since 1930
• Approximately 7 cases per 100,000 people.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IFSO-MGB-ConsensusConference Or Email [email protected]
![Page 139: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/139.jpg)
BARIATRIC SURGEONS FEAR BILLROTH II;CANCER SURGEONS CHOOSE BILLROTH II
• 1,490 articles on performance of the Billroth II
• General/Trauma/Oncologic surgeons commonly use the Billroth II
• Over 16,000 Billroth II operation performed in USA 2007
• While Bariatric Surgeons Fear the Billroth II General Surgeons use the Billroth II routinely
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CCVote Or Email [email protected]
![Page 140: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/140.jpg)
BARIATRIC SURGEONS FEAR BILLROTH IIWHAT IS MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
• Mayo Clinic Study (Example)
• 338 Billroth II patients
• Followed 25-years
• 5,635 person-years
• Only 2 Cancers in 5,000+ pt years of Follow Up • Schafer et al, Risk of gastric carcinoma after treatment for benign ulcer disease. N
Engl J Med. 1983 Nov 17;309
![Page 141: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/141.jpg)
BARIATRIC SURGEONS FEAR BILLROTH IIMAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
• Population based study, 338 Billroth II pts
• Followed 25-years
• 5,635 person-years
• Only 2 Cancers Found in 5,000 years• Predicted 2.6 cancers (relative risk 0.8)
Schafer et al, Risk of gastric carcinoma after treatment for benign ulcer disease. N Engl J Med. 1983 Nov 17;309
![Page 142: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/142.jpg)
BARIATRIC SURGEONS FEAR BILLROTH IIMAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
• 338 Billroth II pts, Followed 25-years
• 5,635 person-years
• Only 2 Cancers in 5,000 pt years follow up
• RATE of Gastric Cancer is Declining
• 24 - 50% Expected Decrease from 1983
• Future risk ~1 patient / 5,000 pt years
![Page 143: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/143.jpg)
ULCERS INCREASE RISK CANCER
• Meta-analysis: 7 studies Small increased risk 5 studies No Increased Risk
• Studies with increased Risk; Flawed
• Billroth II = Surgery Rx Ulcers
• ULCERS increase risk of Gastric Cancer!
• Ulcers and Gastric Cancer Common Etiology =H. Pylori=
![Page 144: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/144.jpg)
ULCERS INCREASE RISK CANCER
•3,078 gastric cancer vs. 89,082 controls•Ulcer increases risk gastric cancer =(relative risk 1.53)=•Same as Increased Risk reported Billroth II •Many other studies confirm these findings: •Ulcer Increases Risk Gastric Cancer•Ulcers & Gastric Cancer:•Common Etiology =H. Pylori=
![Page 145: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/145.jpg)
BARIATRIC SURGEONS FEAR BILLROTH IIGASTROENTEROLOGISTS IGNORE BILLROTH II
• Hundreds of thousands of people with Billroth II’s
• If cancer IS SUCH A BIG RISK…
• Shouldn’t gastroenterologists be looking for these people, screening them with endoscopy?
• No, there is no recommendation for BII follow up screening; Why? THE RISK IS LOW
• 63,000 yrs Follow up 23 cancers = Gen Pop.
![Page 146: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/146.jpg)
RISK OF GASTRIC CANCER AFTER BILLROTH II IS LOW
• Follow-up study of 1000 patients
• 22-30 year follow-up
• 196 endoscopy and biopsy No Cancer of the gastric remnant seen
• Endoscopic screening will be “unrewarding”
• Br J Surg. 1983 Sep;70(9):552-4. Risk of gastric cancer after Billroth II resection for duodenal ulcer. Fischer AB
![Page 147: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/147.jpg)
WHAT CAUSES GASTRIC CANCER?ITS NOT BILLROTH II
• Diets rich in fried, salted, smoked or preserved foods increased cancer risk in many studies.
• Foods contain nitrites and these chemicals can be converted to more harmful compounds (carcinogens) by bacteria in the stomach.
• Diets high in fruit and vegetables protects against Cancer
• Stomach cancer is much more common in smokers and in those with heavy alcohol intake.
• H. Pylori, No H. Pylori No Cancer
![Page 148: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/148.jpg)
DIET AND CANCER PREVENTION
• Avoid ETOH, Tobacco, Processed & Preserved Meats, Salt
• RX H. Pylori, • Eat Fruits and Veggies,
Yogurt and • Drink Green Tea
•Gonzalez CA, Cancer Research, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Av. Gran Via s/n, km 2.7, 08907 L'Hospitalet, Barcelona, Spain.
![Page 149: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/149.jpg)
Which Is More Deadly Which Is More Deadly A Hot Dog Or A Billroth II?A Hot Dog Or A Billroth II?
![Page 150: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/150.jpg)
Which Is More Deadly A Hot Dog Or A Billroth II?
Processed meats (Bacon, sausage, hot dogs, sandwich meat, packaged ham, pepperoni, salami, etc.)
Shown to be associated with gastric cancer. An increase intake of 100 g of processed meat per day Increases the risk of Gastric Cancer by 3.5 times= Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Mar 1;98(5):345-54. Meat intake and risk of stomach and esophageal adenocarcinoma within
the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC).
= J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 2;98(15):1078 "Processed meat consumption and stomach cancer risk: a meta-analysis" The Karolinska Institutet
(Hint: A Hot Dog weight 3.7 oz = 100 g = INCREASED RISK 3.5!)
![Page 151: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/151.jpg)
Which is more deadly a Hot Dog or a Billroth II?
AA BBhttps://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IFSO-MGB-ConsensusConference
Or Email [email protected]
![Page 152: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/152.jpg)
Which is more deadly a Hot Dog or a Billroth II?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A daily serving of processed meat Billroth II
88%
13%
![Page 153: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/153.jpg)
Which Do Bariatric Surgeons Fear More? A Hot Dog or a Billroth II?
AA BBhttps://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IFSO-MGB-ConsensusConference
Or Email [email protected]
![Page 154: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/154.jpg)
UNINFORMED FEAR BILLROTH IIEDUCATED USE BILLROTH II
• 1. Gastric Cancer Declining Rapidly, > 50%
• 2. Gastric Cancer Cause: Environmental Factors / Easily Prevented
Diet, Lifestyle changes and Rx of H. Pylori
(Avoid Etoh, smoking, processed & salted meats and foods, seek high intake of fruits and vegetables)
![Page 155: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/155.jpg)
UNINFORMED FEAR BILLROTH IIEDUCATED USE BILLROTH II
• 3. Some studies Slight Increased Risk of gastric cancer after 20 – 30 years (RR 1.5):But: BII was performed to Rx Ulcer => Ulcer => Increased Risk
• (Worried? Rx H Pylori, Eat healthy etc.)
• 4. Many Large Studies: No Increased RiskThousands of patients followed for Decades
![Page 156: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/156.jpg)
UNINFORMED FEAR BILLROTH IIEDUCATED USE BILLROTH II
• 5. Endoscopic screening of Billroth II patients is Not Recommended. Why? Low Risk!
• 6. General, Trauma and Oncologic surgeons routinely use the Billroth II (Thousands of publications)
• 7. 2007 ~16,000 BII procedures were performed in the USA
![Page 157: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/157.jpg)
UNINFORMED FEAR BILLROTH IIEDUCATED USE BILLROTH II
• 8. Billroth II and the Mini-Gastric BypassExcellent, Safe and Effective
• 9. FEAR Gastric Cancer? Avoid ETOH, Tobacco, Processed & Preserved Meats, Rx H. Pylori, Eat Fruits and Veggies, Yogurt and Drink Green Tea
• A Billroth II probably makes NO difference
![Page 158: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/158.jpg)
T: TRADEOFFS
• Rational Review of the Data vs.Fear Gastric Cancer / Bile Reflux
• Rational Thinking vs. Reptilian Brain
![Page 159: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/159.jpg)
T: TRADEOFFS: Rational Data Analysis vs. Irrational FEAR Gastric Cancer
• 1. Gastric Cancer Declining Rapidly
• 2. GC Environmental Causes; Easily Prevented
• 3. Some studies show Small Increased Risk Probably from Ulcers / H. Pylori
• 4. Many large studies: NO increased risk
• 5. Endoscopic Screening: Not Recommended
• 6. General, Trauma & Oncologic Surgeons Use Billroth II
![Page 160: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/160.jpg)
T: TRADEOFFS FEAR OF GASTRIC CANCER
• FEAR gastric cancer?
• Avoid: Alcohol, Tobacco, Processed & Preserved MeatsRx: H. Pylori, Eat Fruits & Veggies, Yogurt and Drink Green Tea
• Billroth II Probably Makes NO DifferenceBillroth II Probably Makes NO Difference
![Page 161: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/161.jpg)
T: TRADEOFFS FEAR OF GASTRIC CANCER
A Billroth II Probably Makes No Difference
![Page 162: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/162.jpg)
T: TRADEOFFS FEAR OF GASTRIC CANCER
A Billroth II Probably Makes No Difference
![Page 163: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/163.jpg)
Expert Opinions: "May be the Best Operation, I Use It Frequently"
Good, maybe the best form of WLS, I use it often?
May I beg your indulgence: Please consider giving us your learned opinion:https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IFSO-MGB-ConsensusConference Or Email [email protected]
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Band Sleeve RNY MGB
Maybe Best Operation
4%
48%
46%
46%
![Page 164: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/164.jpg)
Expert Opinion: Operation Judged Short and Simple
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Band Sleeve RNY MGB
Short Simple Op
89%
51%
11%
47%
![Page 165: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/165.jpg)
Expert Opinion: Failure is "VERY RARE"
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Band Sleeve RNY MGB
Failure is Very Rare
0%
16%
37%
42%
![Page 166: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/166.jpg)
Experts Who Once Used the Band and Now Have Stopped Using the Band (38%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Y N
Stopped Using the Band
38%
62%
![Page 167: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/167.jpg)
Expert Opinions: Patients Routinely Get Major Weight Loss
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Band Sleeve RNY MGB
Patients routinely get major weight loss
15%
85%
89% 89%
![Page 168: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/168.jpg)
Expert Opinions: Patients RARELY Regain Their Weight
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Band Sleeve RNY MGB
Patients RARELY Regain Their Weight
8%
48%
68%
77%
![Page 169: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/169.jpg)
Expert Opinion: Patients RARELY Suffer Long Term Complications
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Band Sleeve RNY MGB
Patients RARELY Suffer Long Term Complications
18%
72%
55%
64%
![Page 170: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/170.jpg)
MGB Experts (>100 MGBs): Patients RARELY Suffer Long Term Complications
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Band Sleeve RNY MGB
MGB Experts: Patients RARELY Suffer Long Term Complications
0%
44%
34%
89%
![Page 171: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/171.jpg)
Expert Opinions: Procedure Advocates Reporting "No Leaks"
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
MGB Sleeve RNY
No Leaks %
61%
48%
38%
No Leaks %
![Page 172: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/172.jpg)
Expert Opinions: Procedure Advocates Reporting a Leak
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
MGB Sleeve RNY
Surgeons WITH Leaks
39%
52%
62%
![Page 173: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/173.jpg)
Expert Opinion: Revision is Relatively Easy
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Band Sleeve RNY MGB
Revision is relatively easy
41%
48%
6%
67%
![Page 174: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/174.jpg)
CONCLUSIONS: PR.O.A.C.T.Rational Choice: Mini-Gastric Bypass
• Pr: Choice of Obesity Surgery
• O: Objectives “Ideal” Weight Loss Surgery
• A: RNY, Band, Sleeve, MGB
• C: MGB meets almost all objectives/success criteria
• T: Fear of Bile Reflux & Gastric Cancer Not Supported by the Data
• Rational Decision Making: Best Choice; Mini-Gastric Bypass
![Page 175: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/175.jpg)
WHY CRITICS ONLY CARE FOR MGB?• Why do Critics only care about the
Mini-Gastric Bypass?
• 100,000’s of people already have and are living with and are getting the Billroth II every day
• Why haven’t concerned bariatric surgeons stepped forward to stop all general, trauma and oncologic surgeons from performing this Billroth II surgery?
![Page 176: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/176.jpg)
WHY CRITICS ONLY CARE FOR MGB?•Why do Critics only care about the Mini-Gastric Bypass?
•Why haven’t concerned bariatric surgeons stepped forward to start a fund to help suffering Billroth II patients get needed conversions of their surgery to Roux-en-Y?
•Why don’t they write letters to the editor calling for the Billroth II to be declared a operation non-grata?
![Page 177: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/177.jpg)
WHY CRITICS ONLY CARE FOR MGB?• Why do Critics only care about the
Mini-Gastric Bypass?
• Why haven’t concerned bariatric surgeons stepped forward to national funding for lifetime endoscopic screening of Billroth II patients to find dreaded gastric cancers?
• It seems odd doesn’t it?
• There is a simple reason
![Page 178: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/178.jpg)
WHY CRITICS ONLY CARE FOR MGB?• There is a simple reason
• The critics of the MGB do not do those things because they are ...
• Such actions are Not supported by the data
• The Billroth II and the MGB are both good operations
• Published data Does Not support the critics misreading of the medical literature
![Page 179: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/179.jpg)
THE TIDE BEGINS TO TURNTO THE MINI-GASTRIC BYPASS
• “Not too long ago, the bariatric community questioned the role of the mini-gastric bypass and its appropriateness as a durable operation for obesity.”
• The experience of Lee et al. with a large cohort suggests some answers.”
• Michel M. Murr, M.D.
• “The Journal continues to commit to open, spirited, and balanced discussions that are supported by data and withstand the test of common sense.”
• Editorial: Revisional surgery for laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass. Lee WJ, Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2011 Jul-Aug;7(4):486-91
![Page 180: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/180.jpg)
Mini-Gastric Bypass: 9 YEARS LATER! OUT PERFORMS RNY
• New results of the MGB:
• “1,322 patients, 23 (1.7%) had revision Follow-up of 9 years.”
• Excess weight loss 72.1%
• No patient had surgery for internal hernia Revisional surgery for laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass.
Lee WJ, Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2011 Jul-Aug;7(4):486-91
![Page 181: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/181.jpg)
Patient Survey: MGB OUT-PERFORMS BAND & RNY
• Follow up survey of bariatric surgery results in 1,500 patients’ friends, family and acquaintances
• Patient Reported Success in Friends Family:
36% RNY,
24% Band and
93% MGB
![Page 182: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/182.jpg)
EXAMPLE FEAR & DECISION MAKINGSBO VS. GASTRIC CANCER
• Which is more Deadly?
• Gastric Cancer or Small Bowel Obstruction?
• Which is more fearsome?
![Page 183: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/183.jpg)
11+ RNY STUDIES INTERNAL HERNIA BOWEL OBSTRUCTION
• 1 - 16% Internal Hernia /Small Bowel Obstruction
• Follow Up 1-10 years (only 7% at 10 years)
• Note: Dead patients cannot return for follow up
• =15/18 patients, ReOp, failed closure USA=
![Page 184: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/184.jpg)
DEATH AFTER SMALL BOWEL OBSTRUCTION
• 877 patients who underwent 1,007 operations for SBO from 1961 to 1995
• Risk of bowel obstruction increases over time• 52 Deaths 6% Death Rate
• Ann Surg. 2000 April; 231(4), Complications and Death After Surgical Treatment of Small Bowel Obstruction A 35-Year Institutional Experience Fevang et.al., Department of Surgery, University Hospital, University of Bergen, Norway
![Page 185: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/185.jpg)
FEAR AND DECISION MAKINGSBO VS. GASTRIC CANCER
• Which is more Deadly?
• Gastric Cancer or Small Bowel Obstruction?
• Which is more fearsome?
![Page 186: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/186.jpg)
FEAR AND DECISION MAKINGSBO VS. GASTRIC CANCER• 1,000 RNYs, Estimate 20% SBO => 200 operations for
SBO in 5-10 years (? How many more for 20 years?)
![Page 187: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/187.jpg)
FEAR?SBO VS. GASTRIC CANCER• 1,000 RNYs, 20% SBO => 200 operations for SBO in
5-10 years (? How many for 20 years?)
• 6% Death Rate => 12 dead before the end of 10 years from SBO
![Page 188: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/188.jpg)
FEAR?SBO VS. GASTRIC CANCER• 1,000 RNYs, 20% SBO => 200 operations for SBO in
5-10 years (? How many for 20 years?)
• 6% Death Rate => 12 dead before the end of 10 years from SBO
• 1,000 MGBs After 20 years possibly increased risk of cancer of 1 / 1,000
![Page 189: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/189.jpg)
FEAR?SBO VS. GASTRIC CANCER• 1,000 RNYs, 20% SBO => 200 operations for SBO in
5-10 years (? How many for 20 years?)
• 6% Death Rate => 12 dead before the end of 10 years from SBO
• 1,000 MGBs After 20 years possibly increased risk of cancer of 1/1,000
• Deaths at 10 years from Gastric Cancer 0.0
![Page 190: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/190.jpg)
FEAR?SBO VS. GASTRIC CANCER• 1,000 RNYs, 20% SBO => 200 operations for SBO in 5-10
years (? How many for 20 years?)
• 6% Death Rate => 12 dead before the end of 10 years from SBO
• 1,000 MGBs After 20 years possibly increased risk of cancer of 1/1,000
• Death at 10 years from Gastric Cancer 0.0
• Death SBO 12/10 years, Deaths Gastric Cancer 10-20 years 0-1
![Page 191: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/191.jpg)
WHICH DO YOU FEAR?SBO VS. GASTRIC CANCER
• 1,000 RNYs = 200 SBO operations
• Death from RNY SBO 12 deaths / 10 years
• 1,000 MGB’s 0-1 Gastric Cancer @ 20 yrs
• Deaths Gastric Cancer 10-20 years 0-1?
![Page 192: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/192.jpg)
FEAR AND DECISION MAKINGSBO VS. GASTRIC CANCER
• Which is more Deadly?
• Gastric Cancer or Small Bowel Obstruction?
• Which is more fearsome?
![Page 193: Comparison of Revision in Roux-en-Y vs Mini-Gastric Bypass](https://reader038.vdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022102710/54580b64af7959de728b60a5/html5/thumbnails/193.jpg)
FOLLOW UP EFFECT• Unbiased Population based studies => Poor Results of RNY
• Positive Results of RNY reported from RNY centers
• Suffer from “Follow Up Effect”
• Patient Returns to clinic doing well: Greeted Warmly with Great Joy
• Patient Returns to clinic doing poorly: Greeted with anger and disapproval
• Successful pt => Good Follow Up / Failed pt tacitly sent away
• Now; Center reports excellent results; (30%) follow up
• Weight Regain, Band Erosion, Death
• Not Seen, Not Reported