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:

Contents of this Issue


Page 24 of 32

B24 Bariatric Times • November 2016 • Supplement B FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS CONFERENCE ON DUODENAL SWITCH effects of SIPS should not be any different. T aken in total, the conversion of SG to a SIPS procedure is less technically demanding than SG to a RY-GBP since it has one fewer anastomosis to perform and, in the case of a RY-GBP, t wo fewer anastomosis. It would appear that it should have fewer long-term complications than other approaches with an equal malnutrition rate and a similar weight loss profile to a primary SIPS procedure. At the ICCDS, 40 percent of all surgeons in attendance indicated that they would consider this their primary revisional bariatric procedure for failed SG. The SIPS procedure as a revisional procedure is quickly becoming an option all over the world. REFERENCES 1. Alvarenga ES, Lo Menzo E, Szomstein S, Rosenthal RJ. Safety and efficacy of 1020 consecutive laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies performed as a primary treatment modality for morbid obesity. A single-center experience from the metabolic and bariatric surgical accreditation quality and improvement program. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(7):2673–268. Epub 2015 Nov 5. 2. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Estimate of Bariatric Surgery Numbers, 2011-2015. bariatric-surgery-numbers. Accessed July 29, 2016. 3. Cottam A, Cottam D, Medlin W, et al. A matched cohort analysis of single anastomosis loop duodenal switch versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with 18-month follow-up. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(9): 3958–3964. 4. Cottam A, Cottam D, Portenier D, et al. A matched cohort analysis of Stomach Intestinal Pylorus Saving (SIPS) Surgery versus Biliopancreatic Diversion with Duodenal Switch with Two Year Follow Up. Obes Surg. 2016 Aug 28. [Epub ahead of print] 5. Stenberg E, Szabo E, Ågren G, et al. Closure of mesenteric defects in laparoscopic gastric bypass: a multicentre, randomised, parallel, open- label trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10026):1397–1404. F ig u r e 1 . S l e e v e g a s tre c to my c o n v e rte d to s to ma c h i n te s ti n a l p y l o ru s s p a ri n g s u rg e r y (S IP S ) Table 1. Cottam et al Results: Sleeve to SIPS Surgery Subject (n) 12 Male/Female (n) 5/7 Age (years) 44.6 ± 11.9 Primary Sleeve Gastrectomy/ 1st Stage of SIPS Pre-sleeve weight (lbs.) 416.5 ± 11.9 Pre-sleeve BMI (kg/m²) 64.2 ± 17.7 Time to Reoperation (months) 23.9 ± 33.6 Weight loss (%) 16.1 ± 8 Excess body weight loss (%) 25.2 ± 12.3 Revision SIPS/ 2nd Stage of SIPS Pre-SIPS weight (lbs.) 338.7 ± 103.5 Pre-SIPS BMI (kg/m²) 52.7 ± 13.4 Last available f/u point (months) 6.7 ± 5.3 Weight loss (%)* 17 ± 8 Excess body weight loss (%)* 33 ± 16.5 *From the second surgery (not including sleeve)

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Bariatric Times - ICCDS-1 2016