Midterm Results from the Dutch Common Channel Trial (DUCATI): Superior Weight Loss Results of the Long Roux Limb Gastric Bypass in Comparison to the Standard Bypass at 3-Year Follow-Up.

In the multi-center Dutch Common Channel Trial (DUCATI), a very long Roux limb Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (VLRL-RYGB: BP-limb 60 cm, Roux limb variable, and common channel 100 cm) was compared to a standard Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (S-LRYGB: BP-limb 60 cm, Roux limb 150 cm, and common channel variable) in the treatment of morbidly obese patients. As all trial patients are beyond 3-year follow-up a midterm analysis was performed to investigate the effect of the VLRL-RYGB. METHODS: A total of 444 patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either a VLRL-RYGB or a S-LRYGB. Follow-up results for weight loss, effect on obesity-related comorbid conditions, complications, reoperation, and malnutrition are investigated. RESULTS: At 3-year follow-up a significant difference in %TWL (34.0% vs. 31.4%, p = 0.017) and %EWL (84.7% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.043) was observed in favor of VLRL-LRYGB group. Overall complication rate 3-years after surgery was 15.8% in the VLRL-LRYGB group vs. 9% in the S-LRYGB group (p = 0.031). Eight (3.6%) patients in the VLRL-LRYGB group versus 2 (0.9%) in the S-LRYGB group (p = 0.055) required revisional surgery for malabsorption. In the VLRL-LRYGB group 71.9% of patients had resolution of T2DM versus 48.9% in the S-LRYGB group (p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: At midterm FU a considerable, significantly increased effect on weight loss of the VLRL-LRYGB was observed compared to the S-LRYGB, with a higher risk of overall complications, but no significant nutritional side effects. These results might impact the current view on the value of the Roux limb in the discussion on optimum limb lengths in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery.

Does the Length of the Common Channel as Part of the Total Alimentary Tract Matter? One Year Results from the Multicenter Dutch Common Channel Trial (DUCATI) Comparing Standard Versus Distal Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass with Similar Biliopancreatic Bowel Limb Lengths.

PURPOSE: Although the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) is the gold-standard bariatric procedure, it remains uncertain what the optimal bowel limb lengths are to accomplish maximal weight loss while minimizing nutritional deficiencies and related gastro-intestinal complaints. The aim of this randomized controlled multicenter trial is to investigate the effect of significant lengthening of the length of the Roux limb (RL) at the cost of the length of the common channel (CC) while keeping the biliopancreatic limb (BPL) lengths the same on both study arms. METHODS: Four hundred forty-four patients were randomized to receive either a Very Long Roux Limb LRYGB (VLRL-LRYGB) (variable RL length, BPL 60 cm, and CC 100 cm) or a Standard LRYGB (S-LRYGB) (RL 150 cm, BPL 60 cm, and a variable CC length). Results at 1-year follow-up for weight loss, effect on obesity-related comorbid conditions, complications, re-operation rate, malnutrition rate, and re-admission rate were investigated. RESULTS: Weight loss at 1-year showed no significant differences for %EWL (84.3% versus 85.3%, p = 0.72) and %TWL (34.2% versus 33.6%, p = 0.359) comparing VLRL-LRYGB versus S-LRYGB. Malabsorption requiring surgical bowel length adjustment was observed in 1.4% in VLRL-LRYGB group versus 0.9% in S-LRYGB group (p = 0.316). CONCLUSION: Significant lengthening of the RL at the cost of the common channel seems to have no effect on the weight loss at 1-year follow-up, which supports the theory that absorption of nutrients also occurs in the RL. Nevertheless, long-term results of the VLRL-LRYGB have to be awaited to draw final conclusions as part of the discussion towards optimal limb length in LRYGB surgery.

Long-Term Results of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity: 5 to 8-Year Results.

INTRODUCTION: Although long-term results of sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) remain scarce in the literature, its popularity as a stand-alone procedure has accounted for a global increase in LSG performance. In this retrospective study, the authors present 5 to 8-year follow-up results in terms of weight loss, failure/revision rate, and comorbidity resolution from a single center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was reviewed for patients who underwent LSG between 2007 and 2010. Data analysis on weight loss, comorbid conditions, revision surgery, and mortality was conducted. RESULTS: Median percentage excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) was 59.0, and 53.9 %, and median percentage total weight loss (%TWL) was 25.1, and 22.9 % at 5 and 8 years, respectively. Revision to gastric bypass due to insufficient weight loss or gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was performed in 42 patients (15.2 %). Resolution of comorbid condition was achieved in 91 % of patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), 68 % of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), 53 % of patients with hypertension, and 25 % of patients with dyslipedemia. Loss to follow-up rate was 45 % at 5 years, 28 % at 6 years, 23 % at 7 years, and 13 % at 8 years. CONCLUSION: This study adds to the currently available data confirming the LSG to be a safe and effective procedure at long term. Data from high-volume studies are needed to establish the definite role of the LSG in the spectrum of bariatric procedures.

The Sleeve Bypass Trial: a multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing the long term outcome of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass for morbid obesity in terms of excess BMI loss percentage and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is an increasing disease worldwide. Bariatric surgery is the only effective therapy to induce sufficient long-term weight loss for morbidly obese patients. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) is the gold standard surgical technique. Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) is a new promising bariatric procedure which has the advantage of maintaining an intact gastrointestinal tract. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of both techniques. Our hypothesis is that LSG has a similar percentage excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) after 5 years compared to LRYGB. METHODS/DESIGN: The Sleeve Bypass Trial is a randomized multicentre clinical trial: patients eligible for bariatric surgery are randomized to either LSG or LRYGB. Patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m(2) or BMI 35 kg/m(2) with obesity related comorbidity (T2 DM, sleep apnoea, hypertension) are eligible for randomization. At randomization patients are stratified for centre, sex, T2 DM and BMI ≥ 50 kg/m(2). A total number of 620 patients will be enrolled and equally (1:1) randomized to both treatment arms. Only surgeons experienced in both operation techniques will participate in the Sleeve Bypass trial. The primary endpoint is the 5-year weight loss (%EBMIL) of LSG and LRYGB. Secondary endpoints are resolution of obesity related comorbidity, complications, revision bariatric surgery and quality of life (QOL) defined in various questionnaires. DISCUSSION: Long-term %EBMIL between the two treatment strategies used to be in favour of LRYGB, but more recent results throughout the world show similar %EBMIL in both techniques. If weight loss is comparable, obesity-related comorbidity and QOL after bariatric procedures should be taken into account when deciding on which surgical technique is to be preferred for certain subgroups in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register: NTR 4741.

Study protocol of the DUCATI-study: a randomized controlled trial investigating the optimal common channel length in laparoscopic gastric bypass for morbid obese patients.

BACKGROUND: Morbid obesity has become one of the most frequent chronic medical disorders in Western countries, affecting 1.5-2 % of the Dutch population. Currently, the laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass is considered to be the most effective bariatric treatment option for morbid obesity as it results in adequate weight loss and a significant decrease in comorbidity. Although this technique has been applied for years, the optimal lengths of the three bowel limbs (alimentary limb, biliopancreatic limb, and common channel) in order to achieve maximal percentage excess weight loss with minimal side effects (i.e. malabsorption symptoms), are unknown. As 'normal' sized gastric bypasses achieve an average of 60 - 80 % excess weight loss after one year, one could hypothesize that afferent limb lengths should be longer in order to reduce the common channel length, thereby improving outcome in terms of excess weight loss. The aim of the current study is to investigate the effect of the length of the common channel in gastric bypass surgery for morbid obesity. In this randomized controlled trial the very long Roux limb gastric bypass will be compared to the standard gastric bypass, in order to conclude which option is the optimal therapeutic strategy in the morbidly obese patient. METHODS/DESIGN: In this multicentre trial patients will be randomized either to a very long Roux limb gastric bypass with a fixed common channel length of 100 cm, or to a standard gastric bypass with a variable common channel length. The primary objective is to evaluate whether the very long Roux limb gastric bypass is superior in terms of percentage excess weight loss after one year follow-up compared to the standard gastric bypass. Secondary endpoints are quality-of-life, cure /improvement of obesity related comorbidity, complications, malnutrition, re-admission rate, and re-operation rate. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that our proposed distal LRYGB will provide for improved results concerning % EWL with an acceptable rate of (metabolic) complications. Our main point of interest is to determine if the distal LRYGB is a superior alternative to standard LRYGB in terms of percentage excess weight loss and to put more focus on the role of the common channel. Therefore we will perform this randomized controlled trial comparing both techniques, with % EWL as a primary outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CCMO registration number: NL43951.101.13 and Netherlands Trial Registry number: NTR4466.

Effectiveness and Safety of Sleeve Gastrectomy, Gastric Bypass, and Adjustable Gastric Banding in Morbidly Obese Patients: a Multicenter, Retrospective, Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are the most performed procedures worldwide (92 %) nowadays. However, comparative clinical trials are scarce in literature. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the three most performed bariatric procedures. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective, matched cohort study was conducted. Patients were eligible for analysis when a primary procedure was performed between 2007 and 2010 in one of the two specialized bariatric centers. Primary outcome was weight loss, expressed in the percentage excess weight loss (%EWL). Secondary outcome parameters are hospital stay, complication rate, and revisional surgery. RESULTS: In total, 735 patients, 245 in each group, were included for analysis. The groups were comparable for age and gender after matching. Mean postoperative follow-up was 3.1 ± 1.2 years. LAGB patients showed less %EWL compared to LSG and LRYGB at all postoperative follow-up visits. LRYGB showed a %EWL of 71 ± 20 % compared to LSG (76 ± 23 %; p=0.008) after 1-year follow-up; thereafter, no significant difference was observed. After 3 years of follow-up, LAGB showed a higher complication rate compared to LSG and LRYGB (p<0.05). Revisional surgery after LAGB was needed in 21 %, while 9 % of the LSG underwent conversion to RYGB. CONCLUSIONS: LRYGB is a safe and effective treatment in morbid obese patients with good long-term outcomes. LSG seems to be an appropriate alternative as a definitive procedure, in terms of weight reduction and complication rate. LAGB is inferior to both LRYGB and LSG.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with an extensive posterior mobilization: technique and preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is becoming increasingly popular as a stand-alone procedure for the treatment of morbidly obese patients. A direct posterior approach to the angle of His was developed at our department to improve visualization of the difficult dissection of the short gastric vessels and to facilitate proper mobilization of the stomach around the left crus enabling safe realization of a tight sleeve. The technique and its preliminary results are described. METHODS: LSG by posterior approach was performed in a consecutive series of 445 (110 male/335 female, age 18-63 years, mean body mass index 46 kg/m(2) (range 35-76)) patients between 2007 and 2010. RESULTS: Weight loss defined as mean percent excess weight loss (%EWL) was 71% (±26%) at 1 year, 69% (±25%) at 2 years, and 55% (±27%) at 3 years. Sixteen patients (4%) developed postoperative intra-abdominal hematoma, 8 patients (2%) anastomotic leakage, and 6 patients intra-abdominal abscess (1%), requiring reoperation in 20 patients (4%). Five patients (1%) had pulmonary embolism. Thirty-day mortality rate was 0.2%. CONCLUSIONS: LSG by the posterior approach is a safe and effective procedure, enabling a tight sleeve formation leading to satisfactory %EWL results. Since long-term results of LSG are unknown, further studies are needed to define the exact place of the LSG as a stand-alone bariatric procedure.

Reduction of anastomotic failure in laparoscopic colorectal surgery using antitraction sutures.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage is a major complication in colorectal surgery. This study investigates a new method for reducing anastomotic failure using antitraction sutures. METHODS: In 2007, the authors began routine placement of three sutures at every one-third of the circular end-to-end anastomosis to reduce traction. Before the start of the new protocol, 76 patients received laparoscopic colorectal left sided surgery, 21 (28%) of whom received a defunctioning stoma. After the start of the new protocol, 77 patients received laparoscopic colorectal surgery, 6 (8%) of whom received a defunctioning stoma. RESULTS: Placement of a defunctioning stoma was significantly reduced (n = 21 vs. 6; P = 0.01). Only one patient (1%) in the sutured group experienced anastomotic leakage compared with six patients in the control group (P = 0.025). Other anastomosis-related complications during the follow-up period, including anastomotic stenosis and intraabdominal abscess, occurred more frequently in the control group, although the difference did not reach significance. CONCLUSION: The use of antitraction sutures to support the anastomosis seems to reduce the occurrence of anastomotic leakage in laparoscopic left colorectal surgery. A prospective randomized trial is necessary to prove the decreasing effect of antitraction sutures on anastomotic leakage as well as the major decreasing effect on the necessity of placement of defunctioning stomas.