Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass vs Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy in the Remission of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

<b><br>Introduction:</b> Obesity's associated comorbidities and treatment costs have risen significantly, highlighting the importance of early weight loss strategies. Bariatric surgeries like Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) have been effective in promoting weight loss and improving type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management.</br> <b><br>Aim:</b> The aim was to determine whether Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is more effective than vertical sleeve gastrectomy in the remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).</br> <b><br>Methods:</b> A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. A literature search was performed in the databases Web of Science, Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Medline/Ovid. A total of 1323 results were identified; after screening, 14 articles were selected and included in the systematic review. Primary and secondary outcomes were measured by RR with a 95% CI.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> The primary outcome of T2DM remission was 15% in favor of VSG (RR: 1.15, [95% CI: 1.04-1.28]). For secondary outcomes, hypertension remission was 7% in favor of VSG (RR: 1.07, [95% CI: 1.00-1.16]). Remission of dyslipidemia was 16% in favor of VSG (RR: 1.16, [95% CI: 1.06-1.26]). BMI after surgery was in favor of RYGB (MD: -1.31, [95% CI: -1.98 to -0.64]). For weight loss, the results favored VSG (MD: 6.50, [95% CI: 4.99-8.01]). In relation to total cholesterol, they were 65% favorable for RYGB (MD: -0.35, [95% CI: -0.46 to -0.24]), with a value of p <0.05. For LDL values, our results were 69% favorable for RYGB (MD: -0.31, [95% CI: -0.45 to -0.16]), p <0.01 value.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is more effective in T2DM remission, hypertension remission, dyslipidemia remission, and weight loss compared to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is more effective at lowering BMI, total cholesterol, LDL, and TG compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.</br>.

Experience in the management of neoplastic gastric outlet obstruction in patients at the Hospital Universitario San Ignacio in Bogotá, Colombia.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction is a condition that alters patient quality of life, conditioning progressive malnutrition. However, self-expanding metal stents (SEMSs) and surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) are palliative options in patients with unresectable disease. AIM: To characterize patients diagnosed with malignant gastric outlet obstruction requiring SEMS placement or SGJ. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sequential non-probability convenience sampling was conducted and included 68 patients, 40 of whom had SEMS placement and 28 of whom underwent SGJ. RESULTS: Patients sought medical consultations for the symptoms of vomiting, abdominal pain, weight loss, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Ninety-five percent of the patients in the SEMS group and 64.3% in the SGJ group presented with metastasis. Technical and clinical success, patency duration, and number of patients with no complications were greater in the SGJ group. Mean survival in days was 88 (SD ±â€¯21) in the SEMS group versus 501 (SD ±â€¯122) in the SGJ group. The log-rank test detected a statistically significant difference between subgroups (p = 0.00). CONCLUSION: SGJ has greater technical and clinical success rates but SEMS placement continues to be utilized in distal gastric cancer, especially in cases in which surgery is not an option.

Retrocolic retrogastric ROUX-EN-Y gastric bypass: how I do it.

INTRODUCTION: Technical variations of the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass may influence the incidence of complications such as fistulas, marginal ulcers, stenosis, and internal hernias. METHODS: We described the technical aspects of a retrocolic, retrogastric, laparoscopic gastric bypass procedure with manual gastrojejunostomy and the closure technique for the three mesenteric defects generated by the Roux-en-Y limb reconstruction. RESULTS: We summarized the data from 587 patients concerning complications directly related to the surgical technique. There were no internal hernias in patients followed, and in only 2 cases, small bowel obstruction related to defect closure occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The retrocolic, retrogastric gastric bypass performed with a meticulous closure of all three mesenteric defects reflects a low incidence of internal hernias and low complication rates related to the closure itself. The technique also allows less tension at the gastrojejunostomy.

Palliative gastrojejunostomy in unresectable cancer and gastric outlet obstruction: a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Palliative gastrojejunostomy is a surgical technique that allows restoration of oral intake among patients with gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) caused by unresectable neoplasms. Research suggests standard treatment for malignant GOO should be laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy (LGJ). This study presents the clinical outcomes of palliative gastrojejunostomy and compares results from LGJ and open gastrojejunostomy (OGJ) at our centre. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis on patients who underwent palliative gastrojejunostomy for GOO caused by unresectable neoplasms between 2008 and 2018. We included demographic variables, time to recover intestinal transit, time to recover oral intake, hospital stay, complications and global survival. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients underwent palliative gastrojejunostomy (20 OGJ, 19 LGJ). Patients in the LGJ group recovered oral intake and intestinal transit faster than those in the OGJ group (3 vs 5 days, p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in median operating time, hospital stay or postoperative complications between the two groups. No intraoperative complications occurred. The estimated global survival was 178 days, with no significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative LGJ allows earlier restoration of oral intake and does not increase morbidity or mortality. Palliative LGJ should be considered the standard treatment for these patients.

Experience in the management of neoplastic gastric outlet obstruction in patients at the Hospital Universitario San Ignacio in Bogotá, Colombia. / Experiencia del manejo de la obstrucción al tracto de salida gástrico de origen neoplásico en pacientes del Hospital Universitario San Ignacio (HUSI) en Bogotá, Colombia.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction is a condition that alters patient quality of life, conditioning progressive malnutrition. However, self-expanding metal stents (SEMSs) and surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) are palliative options in patients with unresectable disease. AIMS: To characterize patients diagnosed with malignant gastric outlet obstruction requiring SEMS placement or SGJ. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sequential non-probability convenience sampling was conducted and included 68 patients, 40 of whom had SEMS placement and 28 of whom underwent SGJ. RESULTS: Patients sought medical consultations for the symptoms of vomiting, abdominal pain, weight loss, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Ninety-five percent of the patients in the SEMS group and 64.3% in the SGJ group presented with metastasis. Technical and clinical success, patency duration, and number of patients with no complications were greater in the SGJ group. Mean survival in days was 88 (SD ± 21) in the SEMS group versus 501 (SD ± 122) in the SGJ group. The log-rank test detected a statistically significant difference between subgroups (p = 0.00). CONCLUSION: SGJ has greater technical and clinical success rates but SEMS placement continues to be utilized in distal gastric cancer, especially in cases in which surgery is not an option.

Gastric partitioning for the treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is one of the main complications in stage IV gastric cancer patients. This condition is usually managed by gastrojejunostomy (GJ). However, gastric partitioning (GP) has been described as an alternative to overcoming possible drawbacks of GJ, such as delayed gastric emptying and tumor bleeding. AIM: To compare the outcomes of patients who underwent GP and GJ for malignant GOO. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 60 patients who underwent palliative gastric bypass for unresectable distal gastric cancer with GOO from 2009 to 2018. Baseline clinicopathological characteristics including age, nutritional status, body mass index, and performance status were evaluated. Obstructive symptoms were graded according to GOO score (GOOS). Surgical outcomes evaluated included duration of the procedure, surgical complications, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Acceptance of oral diet after the procedure, weight gain, and overall survival were the long-term outcomes evaluated. RESULTS: GP was performed in 30 patients and conventional GJ in the other 30 patients. The mean follow-up was 9.2 mo. Forty-nine (81.6%) patients died during that period. All variables were similar between groups, with the exception of worse performance status in GP patients. The mean operative time was higher in the GP group (161.2 vs 85.2 min, P < 0.001). There were no differences in postoperative complications and surgical mortality between groups. The median overall survival was 7 and 8.4 mo for the GP and GJ groups, respectively (P = 0.610). The oral acceptance of soft solids (GOOS 2) and low residue or full diet (GOOS 3) were reached by 28 (93.3%) GP patients and 22 (75.9%) GJ patients (P = 0.080). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that GOOS 2 and GOOS 3 were the main prognostic factors for survival (hazard ratio: 8.90, 95% confidence interval: 3.38-23.43, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: GP is a safe and effective procedure to treat GOO. Compared to GJ, it provides similar surgical outcomes with a trend to better solid diet acceptance by patients.

Calibrated Gastrojejunostomy in Gastric Bypass: It Is a Myth.

BACKGROUND: Many surgeons prefer a narrow gastrojejunostomy in gastric bypass believing that this provides greater weight loss. The question is whether the anastomosis remains at its initial diameter, whether it narrows or widens over time. This study tests the hypothesis that the initial diameter of the anastomosis varies over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred obese had undergone surgery. Group A with anastomosis 1.5 cm wide and group B with anastomosis 3 cm wide. One-year follow-up was done for 83 patients. The size of the anastomosis diameter was evaluated using a balloon for cardia dilation. RESULTS: Comparing the results of surgery with the values presented 1 year after the procedure, (i) BMI decreased from 43.3 ± 6.6 to 28.7 ± 7.0 kg/m2 for group A and 44.6 ± 5.9 to 29.1 ± 6.3 kg/m2 for group B, (ii) the total weight loss was 30.6 ± 4.7% for group A and 31.9 ± 5.2% for group B, and (iii) the initial 1.5-cm anastomosis in group A measured 2.3 ± 1.0 cm while the initial 3-cm anastomosis in group B measured 2.7 ± 1.0 cm 1 year after surgery. No statistically significant difference was found for any of the variables evaluated before and after the surgical procedure. CONCLUSION: Calibrated anastomosis has no utility in increasing weight loss in gastric bypass.

[Partial stomach partitioning gastrojejunostomy in the treatment of the malignant gastric outlet obstruction]. / Gastro yeyuno anastomosis con separación gástrica parcial en el tratamiento de la obstrucción gastroduodenal secundaria a cáncer gástrico avanzado.

BACKGROUND: In patients with unresectable gastric cancer and outlet obstruction syndrome, gastric partitioning gastrojejunostomy is an alternative, which could avoid the drawbacks of the standard techniques. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of antroduodenal stent, conventional gastrojejunostomy and gastric partitioning gastrojejunostomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted on patients with unresectable distal gastric cancer and gastric outlet obstruction, treated with the three different techniques over the last 12 years, comparing results based on oral tolerance and complications. An analysis was performed on the results using the Student-t test for independent variables. RESULTS: The 22 patients were divided in 3 groups: group I (6 cases) stent, group II (9 cases) conventional gastrojejunostomy, and group III (7 cases) gastric partitioning gastrojejunostomy, respectively. The stent allows a shorter "postoperative" stay and early onset of oral tolerance (P<0.05), however, the gastric partitioning gastrojejunostomy achieve normal diet at 15th day (P<0.05). The mortality rate was higher in the stent group (33%) compared with surgical techniques, with a morbidity of 4/6 (66.7%) in Group I, 6/9 (66.7%) Group II, and 3/7 (42%) Group III. Re-interventions: 2/6 Group I, 3/9 Group II, and 0/7 Group III. The median survival was superior in the gastric partitioning gastrojejunostomy, achieving an overall survival of 6.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: The gastric partitioning gastrojejunostomy for treatment of gastric outlet obstruction in unresectable advanced gastric cancer is a safe technique, allowing a more complete diet with lower morbidity and improved survival.

Variation in feeding practices following the Norwood procedure.

OBJECTIVES: To assess variation in feeding practice at hospital discharge after the Norwood procedure, factors associated with tube feeding, and associations among site, feeding mode, and growth before stage II. STUDY DESIGN: From May 2005 to July 2008, 555 subjects from 15 centers were enrolled in the Pediatric Heart Network Single Ventricle Reconstruction Trial; 432 survivors with feeding data at hospital discharge after the Norwood procedure were analyzed. RESULTS: Demographic and clinical variables were compared among 4 feeding modes: oral only (n = 140), oral/tube (n = 195), nasogastric tube (N-tube) only (n = 40), and gastrostomy tube (G-tube) only (n = 57). There was significant variation in feeding mode among sites (oral only 0%-81% and G-tube only 0%-56%, P < .01). After adjusting for site, multivariable modeling showed G-tube feeding at discharge was associated with longer hospitalization, and N-tube feeding was associated with greater number of discharge medications (R(2) = 0.65, P < .01). After adjusting for site, mean pre-stage II weight-for-age z-score was significantly higher in the oral-only group (-1.4) vs the N-tube-only (-2.2) and G-tube-only (-2.1) groups (P = .04 and .02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Feeding mode at hospital discharge after the Norwood procedure varied among sites. Prolonged hospitalization and greater number of medications at the time of discharge were associated with tube feeding. Infants exclusively fed orally had a higher weight-for-age z score pre-stage II than those fed exclusively by tube. Exploring strategies to prevent morbidities and promote oral feeding in this highest risk population is warranted.