Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
[Current evidence on loop length in intestinal bypass procedures].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Seidemann Lena, Moulla Yusef, Dietrich Arne
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Intestinal bypass procedures are well recognized for their long-term weight reduction and control of metabolic comorbidities. The selection of the length of the small bowel loop has a significant influence on the positive and also negative effects of the chosen procedure but national and international standardization are missing.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to give an overview of the current evidence on the various intestinal bypass procedures and the influence of the chosen small bowel loop length on the desired and adverse postoperative outcomes. The IFSO 2019 consensus recommendations on the standardization of bariatric surgery and metabolic procedures form the basis of these considerations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The current literature was searched for comparative studies addressing the question of different small bowel loop lengths in a Roux-en‑Y gastric bypass, one anastomosis gastric bypass, single anastomosis duodenoileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy and biliopancreatic diversion (with duodenal switch).
RESULTS: Due to the heterogeneity of currently available studies and interindividual differences in total small bowel lengths in humans, it is difficult to give definitive recommendations for the choice of small bowel loop lengths. The longer the biliopancreatic loop (BPL) or the shorter the common channel (CC), the higher is the risk of (severe) malnutrition. To prevent malnutrition, the BPL should not be longer than 200 cm and the CC should have a length of at least 200 cm.
CONCLUSION: The intestinal bypass procedures recommended in the German S3 guidelines are safe and show good long-term outcomes. As part of the postbariatric follow-up, the nutritional status of patients following an intestinal bypass has to be followed-up on the long term in order to avoid malnutrition preferably prior to a clinical manifestation.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to give an overview of the current evidence on the various intestinal bypass procedures and the influence of the chosen small bowel loop length on the desired and adverse postoperative outcomes. The IFSO 2019 consensus recommendations on the standardization of bariatric surgery and metabolic procedures form the basis of these considerations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The current literature was searched for comparative studies addressing the question of different small bowel loop lengths in a Roux-en‑Y gastric bypass, one anastomosis gastric bypass, single anastomosis duodenoileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy and biliopancreatic diversion (with duodenal switch).
RESULTS: Due to the heterogeneity of currently available studies and interindividual differences in total small bowel lengths in humans, it is difficult to give definitive recommendations for the choice of small bowel loop lengths. The longer the biliopancreatic loop (BPL) or the shorter the common channel (CC), the higher is the risk of (severe) malnutrition. To prevent malnutrition, the BPL should not be longer than 200 cm and the CC should have a length of at least 200 cm.
CONCLUSION: The intestinal bypass procedures recommended in the German S3 guidelines are safe and show good long-term outcomes. As part of the postbariatric follow-up, the nutritional status of patients following an intestinal bypass has to be followed-up on the long term in order to avoid malnutrition preferably prior to a clinical manifestation.