Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.

 

Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
   
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat
(or Email:book@scirp.org)

Article citations

More>>

D. E. Azagury, B. K. Abu Dayyeh, I. T. Greenwalt and C. C. Thompson, “Marginal Ulceration after Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery: Characteristics, Risk Factors, Treatment and Outcomes,” Endoscopy, Vol. 43, No. 11, 2011, pp. 950-954.

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Surgical Technique Affects the Incidence of Marginal Ulceration after Roux-en-Y in Gastric Bypass

    AUTHORS: Yong Kwon Lee, Corrigan McBride, Valerie Shostrom, Jon Thompson

    KEYWORDS: Gastric Bypass; Marginal Ulceration

    JOURNAL NAME: Surgical Science, Vol.4 No.12A, November 12, 2013

    ABSTRACT: Background: Marginal ulceration (MU) is a recognized complication of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery. While several possible risk factors have been reported, the mechanism of MU remains incompletely understood. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of surgical technique on the incidence of MU. Methods and Material: This was a retrospective study of 749 patients undergoing RYGB over a ten-year period with at least one year of follow-up. The diagnosis of MU was made based on clinical symptoms and confirmed by postoperative endoscopy (POE). We assessed four different gastric bypass (GBP) techniques: T1—Open, non-divided stomach, circular stapler, non-vagotomy (n = 332); T2—Open, divided stomach, circular stapler, vagotomy (n = 91); T3—Laparoscopic, divided, circular stapler, vagotomy (n = 152); T4—Laparoscopic, divided, linear stapler, vagotomy (n = 174). Results: The four groups were similar with respect to age and mean BMI. The frequency of POE was 16%, 25%, 28% and 27% in groups T1-T4 respectively (NS). The incidence of MU was significantly lower in T1 (2.1%) compared to T2 (5.5%), T3 (15.1%) and T4 (12.6%), p 0.05. MU occurred significantly more frequently with an antecolic Roux limb versus retrocolic (14.5% vs 5.6%, p 0.05). Conclusion: The incidence of MU after RYGB surgery is influenced by surgical technique. The lowest incidence of MU was with a non-divided stomach, no vagotomy, transverse staple line, and circular stapled anastomosis. A retrocolic Roux limb was protective. There was no difference in the incidence of MU using laparoscopic versus open bypass if a similar technique was employed or using linear versus circular stapler for the gastrojejunostomy.