Alternative Method of Mesenteric Defect Closure after Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Obesity Surgery. 29(2):751-753, 2019 02.PMID: 30569371Institution: MedStar Washington Hospital CenterDepartment: Surgery | Surgery/Advanced Laparoscopic and Bariatric SurgeryForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: *Gastric Bypass | *Mesentery/su [Surgery] | *Wound Closure Techniques | HumansYear: 2019Local holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 1997 - presentISSN:
  • 0960-8923
Name of journal: Obesity surgeryAbstract: BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is the gold standard for weight loss surgery. This procedure creates two to three mesenteric defects, depending on ante-colic versus retro-colic technique. Current literature supports mesenteric defect closure, but there is no consensus on how to best close these defects. Described options include running separate suture lines for each defect, or employing endoscopic staplers for defect closure.CONCLUSIONS: The technique maintains low gastric bypass complication rates by closing mesenteric defects, while keeping intra-operative costs low, and minimizing time spent on the defect closures.METHODS: This is a video/dynamic manuscript on operative technique.RESULTS: We describe an alternative technique that does not require an extra laparoscopic instrument and is more efficient than traditional suture lines due to less suturing.All authors: Shope T, Wang EOriginally published: Obesity Surgery. 2018 Dec 19Fiscal year: FY2019Digital Object Identifier: ORCID: Date added to catalog: 2019-01-08
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 30569371 Available 30569371

Available online from MWHC library: 1997 - present

BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is the gold standard for weight loss surgery. This procedure creates two to three mesenteric defects, depending on ante-colic versus retro-colic technique. Current literature supports mesenteric defect closure, but there is no consensus on how to best close these defects. Described options include running separate suture lines for each defect, or employing endoscopic staplers for defect closure.

CONCLUSIONS: The technique maintains low gastric bypass complication rates by closing mesenteric defects, while keeping intra-operative costs low, and minimizing time spent on the defect closures.

METHODS: This is a video/dynamic manuscript on operative technique.

RESULTS: We describe an alternative technique that does not require an extra laparoscopic instrument and is more efficient than traditional suture lines due to less suturing.

English

Powered by Koha