|
|||||
|
|
One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Revision for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Long Versus Short Biliopancreatic Limb Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass |
|
| Authors: | Tarhini Ahmad Rives-Lange Claire Jannot Anne-Sophie Baratte Clement Beaupel Nathan Guillet Vincent Krivan Sylvia Le Gall Maude Carette Claire Czernichow Sebastien Chevallier Jean-Marc Poghosyan Tigran |
| Affiliation: | 1.Université de Paris, 75015, Paris, France ;2.Service de Chirurgie Digestive, Oncologique et Bariatrique, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France ;3.Service de Nutrition, Centre Spécialisé Obésité, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France ;4.Service d’informatique Médicale, Biostatistiques et Santé Publique, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France ;5.Department of Digestive Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK ;6.Inserm UMRS 1149, Paris, France ;7.Inserm, Information Sciences To Support Personalized Medicine, Cordeliers Research Center, Paris, France ; |
| Abstract: | Purpose One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) may be associated with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The nature of this GERD remains unclear. This complication can be treated either with an additional enteroenterostomy without shortening of gastric pouch (long biliopancreatic limb Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L-BPL-RYGB)) or revision to conventional short biliopancreatic limb Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (S-BPL-RYGB). The objective of this study is to compare the aforementioned procedures in terms of efficacy on GERD symptoms. Materials and MethodsRetrospective analysis between October 2012 and June 2020. ResultsFifty-two patients underwent OAGB revision to S-BPL-RYGB (n = 21) or L-BPL-RYGB (n = 31) secondary to GERD. Investigation with pH impedance prior to revision was performed in 15 patients showing biliary reflux (BR) in 7 (46.6%), acid reflux (AR) in 6 (40%), and no confirmation in 2. Patients with AR had a revision to S-BPL-RYGB, whereas patients with BR underwent L-BPL-RYGB. Among the patients without pH metry results (n = 37), S-BPL-RYGB was performed for associated disabling digestive disorders or nutritional deficiencies. GERD was treated in 68% of patients with L-BPL-RYGB versus 95% of patients after S-BPL-RYGB. Patients, whose decision for revisional procedure was based on the results of pH impedance testing, did not reveal refractory GERD. ConclusionL-BPL-RYGB seems appropriate in patients with BR, whereas conversion to S-BPL-RYGB should be preferred if AR is present. Graphical Abstract |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ | |