Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Vs. Mini-gastric Bypass for the Treatment of Morbid Obesity: a 10-Year Experience

Background Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is considered the gold standard for the treatment of morbid obesity but is technically challenging and results in significant perioperative complications. While laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (LMGB) has been reported to be a simple and effec...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Obesity surgery 2012-12, Vol.22 (12), p.1827-1834
Main Authors: Lee, Wei-Jei, Ser, Kong-Han, Lee, Yi-Chih, Tsou, Jun-Juin, Chen, Shu-Chun, Chen, Jung-Chien
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Body Mass Index
Clinical Research
Comparative studies
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Gastrointestinal surgery
Gastroplasty - adverse effects
Gastroplasty - methods
Humans
Laparoscopy
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Obesity
Obesity, Morbid - surgery
Patient Satisfaction
Postoperative Complications - etiology
Quality of Life
Reoperation - statistics & numerical data
Surgery
Surgical techniques
Surveys and Questionnaires
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Weight Loss
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is considered the gold standard for the treatment of morbid obesity but is technically challenging and results in significant perioperative complications. While laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (LMGB) has been reported to be a simple and effective treatment for morbid obesity, controversy exists. Long-term follow-up data from a large number of patients comparing LMGB to LRYGB are lacking. Methods Between October 2001 and September 2010, 1,657 patients who received gastric bypass surgery (1,163 for LMGB and 494 for LRYGB) for their morbid obesity were recruited from our comprehensive obesity surgery center. Patients who received revision surgeries were excluded. Minimum follow-up was 1 year (mean 5.6 years, from 1 to 10 years). The operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and operative complications were assessed. Late complication, changes in body weight loss, BMI, quality of life, and comorbidities were determined at follow-up. Changes in quality of life were assessed using the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index. Results There was no difference in preoperative clinical parameters between the two groups. Surgical time was significantly longer for LRYGB (159.2 vs. 115.3 min for LMGB, p  
ISSN:0960-8923
1708-0428
DOI:10.1007/s11695-012-0726-9