» Articles » PMID: 25085224

Comparison of Marginal Ulcer Rates Between Antecolic and Retrocolic Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Overview
Journal Obes Surg
Date 2014 Aug 3
PMID 25085224
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Marginal ulcer can be a serious complication after laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the rates of marginal ulcer between the antecolic and the retrocolic technique, in a large cohort of patients.

Patients And Methods: Over a near 10-year period, 1,142 patients underwent laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery. The antecolic and the retrocolic technique were used in respectively 572 and 570 consecutive patients. All procedures were performed using a circular stapled gastrojejunostomy.

Results: Patients were followed for 18 to 99 months (mean 48.8 months). During follow-up, 46 patients developed a marginal ulcer (4 %), 32 in the antecolic group (5.6 %) and 14 in the retrocolic group (2.5 %). Nineteen patients (3.3 %) in the antecolic group and eight patients in the retrocolic group (1.4 %) developed early marginal ulcer (i.e., within 3 months after surgery). The mean time to onset of anastomotic ulcer symptoms after surgery was 11 months (range 0.25-72). Forty-four patients were submitted to medical treatment, and 35 patients (79.5 %) had complete resolution of their symptoms.

Conclusion: Patients with an antecolic Roux limb develop significantly more marginal ulcers (p = 0.007) and early marginal ulcer (p = 0.033) than the patients with a retrocolic Roux limb. The antecolic technique seems to be a risk factor for appearance of marginal ulcer.

Citing Articles

Increased incidence of marginal ulceration following conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a multi-institutional experience.

Anderson B, Zhan T, Swaszek L, Sanicola C, King N, Pryor A Surg Endosc. 2022; 37(5):3974-3981.

PMID: 36002686 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09430-4.


Impacts of Gastrojejunal Anastomotic Technique on Rates of Marginal Ulcer Formation and Anastomotic Bleeding Following Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.

Sundaresan N, Sullivan M, Hiticas B, Hui B, Poliakin L, Thompson K Obes Surg. 2021; 31(7):2921-2926.

PMID: 33939060 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-021-05292-2.


Incidence and Prognostic Factors for the Development of Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Marginal Ulcers After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Procedures.

Susstrunk J, Wartmann L, Mattiello D, Kostler T, Zingg U Obes Surg. 2021; 31(7):3005-3014.

PMID: 33761070 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-021-05363-4.


Evaluation of the rate of marginal ulcer formation after bariatric surgery using the MBSAQIP database.

Clapp B, Hahn J, Dodoo C, Guerra A, De La Rosa E, Tyroch A Surg Endosc. 2018; 33(6):1890-1897.

PMID: 30251139 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6468-6.


Bariatric Surgery: A Perspective for Primary Care.

Kizy S, Jahansouz C, Wirth K, Ikramuddin S, Leslie D Diabetes Spectr. 2017; 30(4):265-276.

PMID: 29151717 PMC: 5687111. DOI: 10.2337/ds17-0034.


References
1.
Rawlins L, Rawlins M, Brown C, Schumacher D . Effect of Helicobacter pylori on marginal ulcer and stomal stenosis after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012; 9(5):760-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2012.06.012. View

2.
Frezza E, Herbert H, Ford R, Wachtel M . Endoscopic suture removal at gastrojejunal anastomosis after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to prevent marginal ulceration. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007; 3(6):619-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2007.08.019. View

3.
Ballesta-Lopez C, Poves I, Cabrera M, Almeida J, Macias G . Learning curve for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with totally hand-sewn anastomosis: analysis of first 600 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc. 2005; 19(4):519-24. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-004-9035-2. View

4.
Vasquez J, Overby D, Farrell T . Fewer gastrojejunostomy strictures and marginal ulcers with absorbable suture. Surg Endosc. 2008; 23(9):2011-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-008-0220-6. View

5.
Hedberg J, Hedenstrom H, Nilsson S, Sundbom M, Gustavsson S . Role of gastric acid in stomal ulcer after gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2005; 15(10):1375-8. DOI: 10.1381/096089205774859380. View