Effects of short or long biliopancreatic limb length after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery for obesity: a propensity score-matched analysis
Résumé fourni par la source
PURPOSE: Although recent studies reported superior weight reduction in patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with long biliopancreatic limb (BPL), no recommendation regarding limb lengths exists. This study compares weight loss and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities in patients undergoing RYGB with either long or short BPL. METHODS: A retrospective data search from medical records was performed. A total of 308 patients underwent laparoscopic RYGB with a BPL length of either 100 cm or 50 cm. Data was analyzed before and after propensity score matching. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in weight reduction between long and short BPL RYGB in terms of percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) (86.4 ± 24.5 vs. 83.4 ± 21.4, p = 0.285) and percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) (32.4 ± 8.4 vs. 33.0 ± 8.3, p = 0.543) was found 24 months after surgery. Propensity score-matched analysis did not show any statistically significant difference between groups in both %EWL and %TWL. No significant difference between long and short BPL RYGB in the resolution of obesity-related comorbidities was noted 24 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: Weight loss and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities were not significantly different between long and short BPL RYGB 24 months after surgery.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Effects of short or long biliopancreatic limb length after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery for obesity: a propensity score-matched analysis
- Date Crossref
- 10/05/2022
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.