Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Early results after laparoscopic gastric bypass: EEA vs GIA stapled gastrojejunal anastomosis.
Obes Surg. 2003 Jun; 13(3):355-9.OS

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Various surgical techniques have been successfully applied to isolated Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP). Many surgeons rely on stapling devices for the gastrojejunal (GJ) anastomosis. Early follow-up results were compared for two laparoscopic techniques for GJ anastomosis: circular end-to-end (EEA) and linear cutting (GIA) staplers.

METHODS

Medical charts were retrospectively reviewed of all patients who had undergone stapled GJ anastomosis for isolated RYGBP over a 2-year period. The jejunal limb used for GJ anastomosis was fashioned at 1 cm / unit body mass index (BMI). Patients were grouped by GJ anastomotic technique, EEA or GIA, and the results compared.

RESULTS

61 patients underwent RYGBP (EEA=32; GIA=29), with no differences in preoperative BMI or co-morbidities. Mean (+/-SD) operative time was shorter for the GIA group (EEA=180+/-56.1 minutes; GIA=145.3+/-27.9 minutes, P=0.003). There were 2 early re-operations in the GIA group for anastomotic leaks. Postoperative complications were not statistically different; however, there was an increased incidence of wound infections in the EEA group vs the GIA group (21.9% vs 6.9%, P=0.08). Follow-up at 6-8 months revealed an average percent excess weight loss of 46.7%+/-12.2% for EEA and 51.4%+/-10.7% for GIA (P=0.25). Length of stay, total hospital costs and operating-room costs were similar (P=0.34, 0.53 and 0.96 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Operative time was significantly shorter in the GIA group. Complications, length of stay, weight loss and costs were similar between the groups. Selection of anastomotic technique may be based on surgeon preference, operative time, and potential for serious complications.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Surgery, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA 17033, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

12841893

Citation

Shope, Timothy R., et al. "Early Results After Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass: EEA Vs GIA Stapled Gastrojejunal Anastomosis." Obesity Surgery, vol. 13, no. 3, 2003, pp. 355-9.
Shope TR, Cooney RN, McLeod J, et al. Early results after laparoscopic gastric bypass: EEA vs GIA stapled gastrojejunal anastomosis. Obes Surg. 2003;13(3):355-9.
Shope, T. R., Cooney, R. N., McLeod, J., Miller, C. A., & Haluck, R. S. (2003). Early results after laparoscopic gastric bypass: EEA vs GIA stapled gastrojejunal anastomosis. Obesity Surgery, 13(3), 355-9.
Shope TR, et al. Early Results After Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass: EEA Vs GIA Stapled Gastrojejunal Anastomosis. Obes Surg. 2003;13(3):355-9. PubMed PMID: 12841893.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Early results after laparoscopic gastric bypass: EEA vs GIA stapled gastrojejunal anastomosis. AU - Shope,Timothy R, AU - Cooney,Robert N, AU - McLeod,Janelle, AU - Miller,Cynthia A, AU - Haluck,Randy S, PY - 2003/7/5/pubmed PY - 2003/10/24/medline PY - 2003/7/5/entrez SP - 355 EP - 9 JF - Obesity surgery JO - Obes Surg VL - 13 IS - 3 N2 - BACKGROUND: Various surgical techniques have been successfully applied to isolated Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP). Many surgeons rely on stapling devices for the gastrojejunal (GJ) anastomosis. Early follow-up results were compared for two laparoscopic techniques for GJ anastomosis: circular end-to-end (EEA) and linear cutting (GIA) staplers. METHODS: Medical charts were retrospectively reviewed of all patients who had undergone stapled GJ anastomosis for isolated RYGBP over a 2-year period. The jejunal limb used for GJ anastomosis was fashioned at 1 cm / unit body mass index (BMI). Patients were grouped by GJ anastomotic technique, EEA or GIA, and the results compared. RESULTS: 61 patients underwent RYGBP (EEA=32; GIA=29), with no differences in preoperative BMI or co-morbidities. Mean (+/-SD) operative time was shorter for the GIA group (EEA=180+/-56.1 minutes; GIA=145.3+/-27.9 minutes, P=0.003). There were 2 early re-operations in the GIA group for anastomotic leaks. Postoperative complications were not statistically different; however, there was an increased incidence of wound infections in the EEA group vs the GIA group (21.9% vs 6.9%, P=0.08). Follow-up at 6-8 months revealed an average percent excess weight loss of 46.7%+/-12.2% for EEA and 51.4%+/-10.7% for GIA (P=0.25). Length of stay, total hospital costs and operating-room costs were similar (P=0.34, 0.53 and 0.96 respectively). CONCLUSION: Operative time was significantly shorter in the GIA group. Complications, length of stay, weight loss and costs were similar between the groups. Selection of anastomotic technique may be based on surgeon preference, operative time, and potential for serious complications. SN - 0960-8923 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/12841893/Early_results_after_laparoscopic_gastric_bypass:_EEA_vs_GIA_stapled_gastrojejunal_anastomosis_ L2 - https://dx.doi.org/10.1381/096089203765887651 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -