» Articles » PMID: 19002741

The Effect of Stoma Size on Weight Loss After Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass Surgery: Results of a Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview
Journal Obes Surg
Date 2008 Nov 13
PMID 19002741
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: To determine the effect of different stoma sizes on the percent excess weight loss (%EWL) following laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (LRYGBP).

Methods: Blinded randomized prospective controlled study in two American Society for Bariatric Surgeons-designated Centers of Excellence hospitals. Two hundred gastric bypass patients between January 2005 and September 2005 were prospectively randomized into two groups of 100 patients each in the operating room, after the induction of anesthesia. Patients underwent LRYGBP with different stapler sizes of 21 and 25 mm for gastrojejunal (GJ) anastomosis from January 2005 to September 2005. Postoperative %EWL following LRYGBP in both patient groups were calculated using a multivariable linear mixed-effects model with an unstructured covariance matrix and a logistic regression was used to measure clinical comorbidities.

Results: Applying multivariable mixed models and logistical regression, circular stapler size of 21 and 25 mm, which predicted the need for dilations (odds ratio = 0.489), did not predict weight loss. The only predictors of weight loss were male gender and higher initial weight (p < 0.001). Follow-up at 2 years in the 21- and 25-mm groups was 68% and 66%, respectively. Both groups had > 80% EWL at 2 years.

Conclusion: The level of restriction or the presence of stenosis achieved by different circular stapler sizes does not have a significant causative role in weight loss.

Citing Articles

Gastrojejunostomy Closure Technique and Risk of Leak: an Evaluation in Ex Vivo Porcine Models.

Das B, Ledesma F, Ashrafian H, Reddy M, Khan O, Fehervari M Obes Surg. 2023; 33(3):978-981.

PMID: 36701010 PMC: 9988758. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-023-06470-0.


One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass-Mini-Gastric Bypass (OAGB-MGB) Versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB)-a Mid-Term Cohort Study with 612 Patients.

Rheinwalt K, Plamper A, Ruckbeil M, Kroh A, Neumann U, Ulmer T Obes Surg. 2019; 30(4):1230-1240.

PMID: 31758474 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-019-04250-3.


A systematic review of the effect of gastric pouch and/or gastrojejunostomy (stoma) size on weight loss outcomes with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Mahawar K, Sharples A, Graham Y Surg Endosc. 2019; 34(3):1048-1060.

PMID: 31745633 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07277-w.


Calibration of the Gastric Pouch in Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Does It Matter? The Influence on Weight Loss.

Reiber B, Tenhagen M, Hunfeld M, Cense H, Demirkiran A Obes Surg. 2018; 28(11):3400-3404.

PMID: 29915973 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-018-3352-3.


Calibrated Gastrojejunostomy in Gastric Bypass: It Is a Myth.

Valezi A, Mali Jr J, Menezes M, Sato R Obes Surg. 2018; 28(8):2517-2520.

PMID: 29516394 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-018-3198-8.


References
1.
Fisher B, Atkinson J, Cottam D . Incidence of gastroenterostomy stenosis in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass using 21- or 25-mm circular stapler: a randomized prospective blinded study. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007; 3(2):176-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2006.11.014. View

2.
Nguyen N, Goldman C, Rosenquist C, Arango A, Cole C, Lee S . Laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass: a randomized study of outcomes, quality of life, and costs. Ann Surg. 2001; 234(3):279-89; discussion 289-91. PMC: 1422019. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-200109000-00002. View

3.
Maggard M, Shugarman L, Suttorp M, Maglione M, Sugerman H, Sugarman H . Meta-analysis: surgical treatment of obesity. Ann Intern Med. 2005; 142(7):547-59. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-7-200504050-00013. View

4.
. Guidelines for reporting results in bariatric surgery. Standards Committee, American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Obes Surg. 1998; 7(6):521-2. DOI: 10.1381/096089297765555322. View

5.
Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E, Jensen M, Pories W, Fahrbach K . Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004; 292(14):1724-37. DOI: 10.1001/jama.292.14.1724. View