RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) has been considered a reference procedure in the bariatric surgery. The linear-stapled gastrojejunostomy (GJ) has proved to be safe and effective, but its optimal size referred to postoperative weight loss remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the role of the linear-stapled GJ size in the mid-term post-LRYGB weight loss and occurrence of complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January to April 2014, 128 patients underwent LRYGB with linear-stapled GJ in a 2-year follow-up. The LRYGB were carried out with the same technical steps, except for the length of the GJ. In GJ-15-mm group (n = 64), the GJ was constructed with white 45-mm cartridge in an extension of only 15 mm whereas in GJ-45-mm group (n = 64), the GJ was achieved using full extension of the cartridge. The body mass index (BMI) reduction was recorded for 24 months after procedure. RESULTS: The mean ages were 38 ± 10.6 and 41.3 ± 12.3 years, and there were 45 (70.3%) and 51 (79.7%) females in the GJ-15-mm and GJ-45-mm groups, respectively. The analysis on raw BMI data showed that both groups had significant reduction of BMI over time (p ≤ 0.05); however, reduction was greater in the GJ-15-mm group from 18 months onwards (p ≤ 0.05). The only complication observed was a case (1.56%) of stenosis in the group GJ-15 mm. CONCLUSION: The global analysis of BMI reduction indicated that the narrower GJ used (GJ-15-mm group) represented a favoring factor decreasing significantly more the BMI when compared to the wider one (GJ-45-mm group).
Asunto(s)
Derivación Gástrica/métodos , Yeyunostomía/métodos , Obesidad Mórbida/cirugía , Estomas Quirúrgicos/patología , Pérdida de Peso , Adulto , Índice de Masa Corporal , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Derivación Gástrica/efectos adversos , Derivación Gástrica/rehabilitación , Humanos , Derivación Yeyunoileal/efectos adversos , Derivación Yeyunoileal/métodos , Derivación Yeyunoileal/rehabilitación , Yeyunostomía/efectos adversos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Laparoscopía/rehabilitación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Obesidad Mórbida/patología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Estomas Quirúrgicos/efectos adversos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The controversy regarding whether loop ileostomy or loop transverse colostomy is a better method for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis motivated this review. METHODS: Five randomized trials were included, with 334 patients: 168 in the loop ileostomy group and 166 in the loop transverse colostomy group. The outcomes analyzed were: 1. Mortality; 2. Wound infection; 3. Time of stoma formation; 4. Time of stoma closure; 5. Time interval between stoma formation and closure; 6. Stoma prolapse; 7. Stoma retraction; 8. Parastomal hernia; 9. Parastomal fistula; 10. Stenosis; 11. Necrosis; 12. Skin irritation; 13. Ileus; 14. Bowel leakage; 15. Reoperation; 16. Patient adaptation; 17. Length of hospital stay; 18. Colorectal anastomotic dehiscence; 19. Incisional hernia; 20. Postoperative bowel obstruction. RESULTS: Stoma prolapse was statistically significant (p = 0.00001), but with statistical heterogeneity; the sensitive analysis was applied, excluding the trials that included emergency surgery, and this showed: p = 0.02, with I2 = 0% for the heterogeneity test. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes reported were not statistically or clinically significant except for stoma prolapse. Better evidence for making the choice between loop ileostomy or loop colostomy requires large-scale randomized controlled trials.
Asunto(s)
Colostomía/normas , Descompresión Quirúrgica/métodos , Ileostomía/normas , Anastomosis Quirúrgica , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Estomas Quirúrgicos/patología , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The controversy regarding whether loop ileostomy or loop transverse colostomy is a better method for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis motivated this review. METHODS: Five randomized trials were included, with 334 patients: 168 in the loop ileostomy group and 166 in the loop transverse colostomy group. The outcomes analyzed were: 1. Mortality; 2. Wound infection; 3. Time of stoma formation; 4. Time of stoma closure; 5. Time interval between stoma formation and closure; 6. Stoma prolapse; 7. Stoma retraction; 8. Parastomal hernia; 9. Parastomal fistula; 10. Stenosis; 11. Necrosis; 12. Skin irritation; 13. Ileus; 14. Bowel leakage; 15. Reoperation; 16. Patient adaptation; 17. Length of hospital stay; 18. Colorectal anastomotic dehiscence; 19. Incisional hernia; 20. Postoperative bowel obstruction. RESULTS: Stoma prolapse was statistically significant (p = 0.00001), but with statistical heterogeneity; the sensitive analysis was applied, excluding the trials that included emergency surgery, and this showed: p = 0.02, with I² = 0 percent for the heterogeneity test. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes reported were not statistically or clinically significant except for stoma prolapse. Better evidence for making the choice between loop ileostomy or loop colostomy requires large-scale randomized controlled trials.
OBJETIVO: A controvérsia entre ileostomia em alça ou colostomia em alça como a melhor forma para a descompressão temporária da anastomose colorretal motivou a realização desta revisão. MÉTODOS: Cinco ensaios clínicos casualizados foram incluídos com 334 pacientes: 168 no grupo de ileostomia e 166 no grupo de colostomia. Os resultados analisaram: 1. Mortalidade; 2. Infecção da ferida; 3. Tempo de formação do estoma; 4. Tempo de fechamento do estoma; 5. Intervalo de tempo entre a formação e o fechamento do estoma; 6. Prolapso do estoma; 7. Retração do estoma; 8. Hérnia parastomal; 9. Fistula parastomal; 10. Estenose; 11. Necrose; 12. Irritação de pele; 13. Íleo; 14. Fístula entérica; 15. Reoperação; 16. Adaptação do paciente; 17. Tempo de internação hospitalar; 18. Deiscência da anastomose colorretal; 19. Hérnia de Incisional; 20. Obstrução intestinal pós-operatória. RESULTADOS: Prolapso do estoma: p = 0.00001, mas com heterogeneidade estatística; a análise de sensibilidade foi aplicada excluindo os estudos que incluíram cirurgias de emergência: p = 0.02 e teste de heterogeneidade: I²=0 por cento. CONCLUSÕES: Os resultados encontrados não foram estatística ou clinicamente significantes, exceto prolapso do estoma. A melhor evidência para a escolha entre ileostomia em alça ou colostomia em alça necessita de maior número de ensaios clínicos.