Physiology of the MGB: How It Works for Long-Term Weight Loss

  • Kuldeepak S. Kular
  • Naveen Manchanda
  • Robert Rutledge
Chapter

Abstract

Obesity is increasing rapidly throughout the world, and is predicted to double by 2025. Bariatric surgery has shown promising results, but a need for a safe and more effective procedure exists. In the last decade, there have been many publications confirming that Mini-Gastric Bypass (MGB) is a safer and equally or more effective alternative to the traditional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. MGB has shown stronger metabolic control and more durable weight loss than the traditional bariatric operations.

The proposed mechanism behind this sustained weight loss and effective control of the metabolic syndrome is a longer biliopancreatic limb and the long gastric pouch with a wide gastric outlet, giving a low-pressure tube and thus reducing the chances of leak, nausea, and reflux in the immediate post-operative period. There are also fewer chances of dilatation in the long-term for the same reason.

The delivery of food without obstruction enables the food to be dropped into the distal jejunum, thus causing a transient dilatation of the gut and thereby giving a feeling of satiety. This mechanism may be called “non-obstructive restriction of the MGB.” Other mechanisms working behind the MGB are the gut hormones, incretins, and changes in the gut flora.

Although initially there was strong skepticism of the MGB, now the safety, durability, and reversibility of the MGB is well accepted. With this comes the understanding of the special mechanisms, justifying the multiple published good results of MGB.

Keywords

Mini-gastric bypass One anastomosis gastric bypass Bariatric surgery Dumping syndrome Type 2 diabetes 

References

  1. 1.
    WHO Factsheet. Obesity and overweight. 2017. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/.
  2. 2.
    Atallah R, Filion KB, Wakil SM, et al. Long-term effects of 4 popular diets on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7:815–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leblanc ES, O’Connor E, Whitlock EP, et al. Effectiveness of primary care-relevant treatments for obesity in adults: a systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:434–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E, et al. Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta analysis. JAMA. 2004;292:1724–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee WJ, Ser KH, Lee YC, Tsou JJ, Chen SC, Chen JC. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y vs mini-gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity: a 10-year experience. Obes Surg. 2012;22:1827–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee WJ, Yu PJ, Wang W, et al. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y versus mini-gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity. Ann Surg. 2005;242:20–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rutledge R. The mini-gastric bypass: experience with the first 1,274 cases. Obes Surg. 2001;11:276–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carbajo M, García-Caballero M, Toledano M, et al. One-anastomosis gastric bypass by laparoscopy: results of the first 209 patients. Obes Surg. 2005;15:398–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kular KS, Manchanda N, Rutledge R. A 6-year experience with 1,054 mini-gastric bypasses – first study from the Indian subcontinent. Obes Surg. 2014;24:1430–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deitel M, Kular KS, Musella M, Carbajo M, Luque-de-Leon E. A new organisation – The MGB/OAGB Club. Bariatic News. 2015. http://www.bariatricnews.net/?q=node/2159.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Rutledge R, Kular KS, Deitel M. Laparoscopic mini-gastric (one-anastomosis) bypass surgery. In: Agrawal S, editor. Obesity, bariatric and metabolic surgery: a practical guide. Switzerland: Springer Science; 2016. p. 415–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niv E, Fireman Z, Vaisman N. Post-pyloric feeding. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:1281–8.  https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.15.1281.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dorman RB, Ikramuddin S. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: techniques and outcomes. In:The SAGES manual. New York: Springer. p. 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hall JE. Guyton and hall textbook of medical physiology, Unit XII, gastrointestinal physiology. Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA; 2015. p. 834.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Odstrcil EA, Martinez JG, Santa Ana CA, Xue B, Schneider RE, Steffer KJ, Porter JL, Asplin J, Kuhn JA, Fordtran JS. The contribution of malabsorption to the reduction in net energy absorption after long-limb Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92:704–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Svanevik M, Risstad H, Hofsø D, Schou CF, Solheim B, Søvik TT, Kristinsson J, Hjelmesæth J, Mala T, Sandbu R. Perioperative outcomes of proximal and distal gastric bypass in patients with BMI ranged 50–60 kg/m2 – A double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Obes Surg. 2015;25:1788–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jammu GS, Sharma R. A 7-year clinical audit of 1107 cases comparing sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and mini-gastric bypass, to determine an effective and safe bariatric and metabolic procedure. Obes Surg. 2016;26:926–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Suárez Llanos JP, Fuentes Ferrer M, Alvarez-Sala-Walther L, García Bray B. Medina González L4 Bretón Lesmes I, Moreno Esteban B. Protein malnutrition incidence comparison after gastric bypass versus biliopancreatic diversion. Nutr Hosp. 2015;32:80–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ukleja A. Nutrition issues in Gastroenterology, series #35, Integrative Nutrition Therapy. 2016. p 270.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deitel M. The change in the dumping syndrome concept. Obes Surg. 2008;18:1622–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Emous M, Wolffenbuttel BHR, Totté E, van Beek AP. The short- to mid-term symptom prevalence of dumping syndrome after primary gastric-bypass surgery and its impact on health-related quality of life. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13:1489–500.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2017.04.028.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nannipieri M, Mari A, Anselmino M, et al. The role of beta-cell function and insulin sensitivity in the remission of type 2 diabetes after gastric bypass surgery. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96:e1372–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cummings DE. Endocrine mechanisms mediating remission of diabetes after gastric bypass surgery. Int J Obes (Lond). 2009;33:S33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee WJ, Chong K, Lin YH, Wei JH, Chen SC. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrecomy versus single anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: 5-year results of a randomized trial and study of incretin effect. Obes Surg. 2014;24:1552–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Troseid M, Nestvold TK, Rudi K, Thoresen H, Nielsen EW, Lappegard KT. Plasma lipopolysaccharide is closely associated with glycemic control and abdominal obesity: evidence from bariatric surgery. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:3627–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patti ME, Houten SM, Bianco AC, et al. Serum bile acids are higher in humans with prior gastric bypass: potential contribution to improved glucose and lipid metabolism. Obesity. 2009;17:1671–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Turer AT, Scherer PE. Adiponectin: mechanistic insights and clinical implications. Diabetologia. 2012;55:2319–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rubino F. Bariatric surgery: effects on glucose homeostasis. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2006;9:497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kashyap S, Daud S, Kelly KR, et al. Acute effects of gastric bypass versus gastric restrictive surgery on beta-cell function and insulinotropic hormones in severely obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Int J Obes (Lond). 2010;34:462–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liou AP, Paziuk M, Luevano JM, Machineni S, Turnbaugh PJ, Kaplan LM. Conserved shifts in the gut microbiota due to gastric bypass reduce host weight and adiposity. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(178):178ra41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gasbarrini A, Corazza GR, Gasbarrini G, et al. Methodology and indications of H2-breath testing in gastrointestinal diseases: the Rome Consensus Conference. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29(Suppl 1):1–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kuldeepak S. Kular
    • 1
  • Naveen Manchanda
    • 1
  • Robert Rutledge
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Bariatric and Metabolic SurgeryKular College and HospitalLudhianaIndia
  2. 2.Palm SpringsUSA

Personalised recommendations