Bariatric Times

ICCDS-1 2016

A peer-reviewed, evidence-based journal that promotes clinical development and metabolic insights in total bariatric patient care for the healthcare professional

Issue link: http://bariatrictimes.epubxp.com/i/749808

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 22 of 32

B22 Bariatric Times • November 2016 • Supplement B FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS CONFERENCE ON DUODENAL SWITCH In summary, the results from these series and several others show t he following: 1. Weight loss/metabolic improvement comparable to DS 2. Complications related to bariatric surgery with similar rates to other p rocedures that require an anastomosis, not the loop construction 3. Acceptable nutritional parameters 4. Very low to null incidence of small bowel obstruction, marginal ulcer, and anastomotic stricture. It is our opinion that SIPS or modifications of the DS are going to grow in popularity as a salvage procedure for VSG and primary operation for those that require more than sleeve can offer. Interest in these procedures is increasing because of this unmet need. The labeling by national organizations as investigational and their suggestion to have IRB clearance has hindered growth. However, an increasing number of surgeons feel that these alterations are a natural progression and simple modifications of existing themes. Acceptance is growing at a rapid rate. REFERENCES 1 . Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E, et al. Bariatric surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;292(14):1724–1737. 2. Topart P, Becouarn G, Salle A, et al. Biliopancreatic diversion requires multiple vitamin and micronutrient adjustments within 2 years of surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10(5):936–941 3. Mitzman B, Cottam D, Goriparthi R, Cottam S, Zaveri H, Surve A, Roslin MS. Stomach Intestinal Pylorus Sparing (SIPS) Surgery for morbid obesity: Retrospective analyses of our preliminary experience. Obes Surg. 2016;26(9):2098–2104. 4 . Resa JJ1, Solano J, Fatás JA, et al. Laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion: technical aspects and results of our protocol. Obes Surg. 2004;14(3):329–333; discussion 333. 5. Still CD, Wood GC, Benotti P, et al. A probability score for preoperative prediction of type 2 diabetes remission following RYGB surgery. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2(1):38–45. 6. Mingrone G, Panunzi S, de Gaetano A, et al. Bariatric surgery versus conventional medical therapy for type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(17):1577–1585. 7. Schauer P, Kashyap S. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy in obese patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(17):1567–1576. Epub 2012 Mar 26. 8. Arterburn DE, Bogart A, Sherwood NE, et al. A multisite study of long- t erm remission and relapse of type 2 diabetes mellitus following gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2013;23(1):93–102. 9. Sjostrom L. Review of the key results from the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) trial - a prospective controlled intervention study of bariatric surgery. J Intern Med. 2013;273(3):219–234. Epub 2013 Feb 8. 10. Holst JJ. The physiology of glucagon- like peptide 1. Physiol Rev. 2007;87(4):1409–1439. 11. Kim W, Egan JM. The role of incretins in glucose homeostasis and diabetes treatment. Pharmacol Rev. 2008;60(4):470–512. 12. Lindqvist A, Spégel P, Ekelund M, et al. Gastric bypass improves β-cell function and increases β-cell mass in a porcine model. Diabetes. 2014;63(5):1665–1671. 13. Sánchez-Pernaute A, Rubio MÁ, Conde M, Arrue E, Pérez-Aguirre E, Torres A. Single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass as a second step after sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(2):351–355. Epub 2014 Jul 10. 14. Cottam A, Cottam D, Roslin M, et al. A matched cohort analysis of sleeve gastrectomy with and without 300 cm loop duodenal switch with 18-month follow-up. Obes Surg. 2016;26(10):2363–2369. V i e w a c c o m p a n y i n g v i d e o a t h t t p : / / i c c d s 1 . m e t a b o l i c s u r g e r y . t v Scan here for the direct link

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Bariatric Times - ICCDS-1 2016