Advertisement

Obesity Surgery

, Volume 26, Issue 8, pp 1705–1709 | Cite as

Common Limb Length Does Not Influence Weight Loss After Standard Laparoscopic Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass

  • Benoit Navez
  • Theodoros Thomopoulos
  • Irina Stefanescu
  • Laurent Coubeau
Original Contributions

Abstract

Background

Although Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) has proven its reliability over time in terms of weight loss and resolution of comorbidities, there continues to be a significant controversy in terms of used limb lengths. In the classical RYGBP, most surgeons have reported an alimentary limb length (ALL) of 100 to 150 cm and a bilio-pancreatic limb length (BPLL) of 50 to 75 cm. On the other hand, the common limb length (CLL) remains unknown in all the patients. As it is theoretically related to the level of malabsorption, CLL could influence weight loss after RYGBP.

Materials and Methods

We performed a laparoscopic RYGBP in 90 patients with a mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) of 44.8. ALL and BPLL were respectively fixed at 150 and 75 cm. A systematic intraoperative measurement of CLL was performed.

Results

As expected, we found a great variation of the jejuno-ileal length and also of the CLL. We created three subgroups of patients: one with the entire population, one excluding the super-obese patients (BMI > 50) and the third one excluding the revisions. There was no statistically significant correlation between CLL and excess BMI loss (EBMIL) at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months of follow-up in each group. We also found a linear correlation between the jejuno-ileal length and the height of individuals.

Conclusion

With a fixed 150-cm ALL and a 75-cm BPLL, there is no evidence that the anatomical variations of CLL could influence weight loss after classical RYGBP.

Keywords

Roux-en-Y laparoscopic gastric bypass Common limb length Malabsorption Excess weight loss Alimentary limb length Biliopancreatic limb length 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Schauer PR, Kashyap SR, Wolski K, et al. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy in obese patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(17):1567–76. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1200225
  2. 2.
    Mason EE, Ito C. Gastric bypass. Ann Surg. 1969;170(3):329–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Madan AK, Harper JL, Tichansky DS. Techniques of laparoscopic gastric bypass: on-line survey of American Society for Bariatric Surgery practicing surgeons. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2008;4(2):166–72. discussion 172–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elder KA, Wolfe BM. Bariatric surgery: a review of procedures and outcomes. Gastroenterology. 2007;132(6):2253–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christou NV, Look D, Maclean LD. Weight gain after short- and long-limb gastric bypass in patients followed for longer than 10 years. Ann Surg. 2006;244(5):734–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Suter M, Calmes JM, Paroz A, et al. Results of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in morbidly obese vs superobese patients: similar body weight loss, correction of comorbidities, and improvement of quality of life. Arch Surg. 2009;144(4):312–8. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.19. discussion 318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mervyn Deitel MD, Robert J, Greenstein MD. Recommendations for reporting weight loss. Obes Surg. 2003;13(2):159–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stefanidis D, Kuwada TS, Gersin KS. The importance of the length of the limbs for gastric bypass patients—an evidence-based review. Obes Surg. 2011;21(1):119–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brolin RE, LaMarca LB, Kenler HA, et al. Malabsorptive gastric bypass in patients with superobesity. J Gastrointest Surg. 2002;6(2):195–203. discussion 204–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Navez J, Dardamanis D, Thissen JP, et al. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity: comparison of primary versus revisional bypass by using the BAROS score. Obes Surg. 2015;25(5):812–7. doi: 10.1007/s11695-014-1473-x
  11. 11.
    Mumphrey MB, Patterson LM, Zheng H, et al. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery increases number but not density of CCK-, GLP-1-, 5-HT-, and neurotensin-expressing enteroendocrine cells in rats. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;25(1):e70–9. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12034.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Savassi-Rocha AL, Diniz MT, Savassi-Rocha PR, et al. Influence of jejunoileal and common limb length on weight loss following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2008;18(11):1364–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papadia F. Effect of standard versus extended Roux limb length on weight loss outcomes after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(11):1683.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abellan I, Lujan J, Frutos MD, et al. The influence of the percentage of the common limb in weight loss and nutritional alterations after laparoscopic gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10(5):829–33. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2014.06.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karra E, Yousseif A, Batterham RL. Mechanisms facilitating weight loss and resolution of type 2 diabetes following bariatric surgery. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2010;21(6):337–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beckman LM, Beckman TR, Earthman CP. Changes in gastrointestinal hormones and leptin after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure: a review. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(4):571–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Konturek PC, Konturek JW, Cześnikiewicz-Guzik M, et al. Neuro-hormonal control of food intake: basic mechanisms and clinical implications. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2005;56 Suppl 6:5–25.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Underhill BM. Intestinal length in man. Br Med J. 1955;2(4950):1243–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benoit Navez
    • 1
  • Theodoros Thomopoulos
    • 1
  • Irina Stefanescu
    • 1
  • Laurent Coubeau
    • 1
  1. 1.Oesogastroduodenal and Bariatric Unit, Department of Abdominal Surgery and TransplantationCliniques Universitaires Saint-LucBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations