1. Namaste, G'day, Guten tag, Konichiwa, Ciao,
Olá e bem-vindos, Ni Xao, Sawadeeka, Bonjour,
Buenos dias, Ciao, Howdy!
PROGRAM:
FIRST INTERNATIONAL
MINI-GASTRIC BYPASS /
ONE ANASTOMOSIS BYPASS
CONSENSUS CONFERENCE
Paris Oct18-20 2012
Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 8:00 AM
Friday, October 19, 2012 at 12:00 PM (PDT)
Paris Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport Marriott Hotel
Allée du Verger, 95700 Roissy-en-France, France
In addition Live Surgery Demonstration on Saturday Oct 20
Clinique Geoffroy Saint Hilaire - Paris , 59 Rue Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire 75005 Paris, France, 01 44 08 40 00
Dr Rutledge & Dr Chiche, Two Operating Rooms 6 - 8 MGB,3 Visitors in OR,
Video Transmission Conference Room 25 Surgeons, (Contact DrR@clos.net for special invitation)
2. Welcome
• Honorary Meeting Chairman: Jean Mouiel, MD Pr of Surgery Obesity Center Nice France
• Chairman of the Meeting: Pr Jean-Marc Chevallier, chirurgie digestive , coelioscopie et de l'obésité, président de la
soffco, hôpital européen georges pompidou, 20 rue leblanc, 75908 paris cedex 15, France
• International Co-Chairman; Prof M. Garciacaballero, Full Professor Surgery, University Malaga, Medical Faculty,
Malaga, 29080, Spain, gcaballe@uma.es
• International Co-Chairman; Dr. K S Kular M.S., Director, Dept of Bariatric Surgery, Kular Hospital & College of Nursing,
Bija, Ludhiana, Punjab , India - 141412
• Goals
Listen to Short Data/Presentations
Discuss Pros and Cons of Issues
Vote on Consensus of the Group
Record the Results
• Meeting Process
Several short presentations by leaders in the field.
Chairman opens the discussion.
Moderator roams the floor to seek both discussion and consensus.
Recorder makes a written record of the discussion and voting also guiding the discussion to come to decisions by the
group.
Meeting Chairmen, Moderators and Recorders
• SECTION I: Bariatric Today: Surgery Choices and Outcomes
• Section Chairman: Roberto Tacchino
• Moderator: Dr. Narwaria
• Recorder: Dr. Jan Apers
• SECTION II: MGB Results with Large Series
• Section Chairman: Dr. Shashank Shah/Dr Bhandari
• Moderator: Emilio Manno
• Recorder: Karl Rheinwalt
• SECION III: MGB/OAB Best Practice; Technical Performance
• Section Chairman & Moderator: Pr Jean-Marc Chevallier
• Recorder: Mario Musella
• Thursday Video Techniques Lunch 1
• Section Chairman: Michael Van den Bossche
• Moderator: Pr Jean-Marc Chevallier
• Recorder: Jan Apers
3. Thursday Afternoon :
• SECTION IV: MGB Advantages, Long Term Studies & Other Topics
• Section Chairman: Prof. M. Garciacaballero
• Moderator: Kamal Mahawar
• Recorder: Philippe Costil
Friday Morning: MGB; Expert's Experience; TIPS and Tricks, Complications and Risks
• SECTION V: Beginning The Consensus Conference Final Statement
• Section Chairman: Jean Mouiel, MD
• Moderator: Michal Cierny
• Recorder: Dr. Rui Ribeiro
• Video Techniques Lunch II
• Section Chairman: Dr. C Peraglie
• Moderator: Mario Musella
• Recorder: Dr. Karl Rheinwalt
• SECTION VI: The End: The Final Consensus Conference Voting Statements & Planning for the Future
• Section Chairman: Dr. Roberto Tacchino
• Moderator: Dr. Rutledge
• Recorder: KS Kular
SATURDAY MORNING Oct 20 2012
SECTION VII: Live MGB Surgery with Cady, ChiChe, Guerolt & Rutledge
Monday Morning Oct 22, Live Surgery in Lisbon Portugal w Dr. Rui Riberio/Dr Rutledge
4. Table of Contents
Welcome
Faculty
Program Outline
Updated 10/12/12: Brief Program
Saturday Oct 12, 2012; Live Interactive Case Demonstrations of Mini-
Gastric Bypass
Full Program
Esophageal Cancer & GE Reflux: Brief Review
Rutledge Version of Mini-Gastric Bypass: Tools, Tips, Techniques;
Special needs for the Surgery (Instruments, etc.)
References
Mini-Gastric Bypass References
Sleeve Gastrectomy Quickly Leads to New Onset GE Reflux & Weight
Regain
Meeting Survey
5. Faculty
Name: Title Institution: City/Town: Country:
Jean Mouiel, MD Pr of Surgery Obesity Center NICE FRANCE
Mario Musella Associate Professor of Surgery Naples "Federico II" University - Medical School Naples ITALY
Philippe COSTIL NEUILLY SUR SEINE FRANCE
Jan Apers drs. MCL Leeuwarden Leeuwarden Netherlands
Roberto Tacchino MD Catholic University Rome Italy
Atul N.C Peters DR. Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh New Delhi INDIA
Rui Ribeiro Dr. Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central Lisboa Portugal
Michael Van den Bossche MD FRCS Spire Southampton Hospital Castel UK
Michal Cierny Dr., PhD Breclav Hospital Breclav Czech Republic
M. Garciacaballero Full Professor Surgery University Malaga Malaga Spain
Karl Rheinwalt Dr. Dept.for Bariatric Surgery, St. Franziskus-Hospital Cologne Germany
Emilio Manno MD Ospedale Cardarelli Naples Italy
Francesco Greco MD, PhD Clinica Castelli Bergamo
Maurizio De Luca MD Vicenza Regional Hospital Vicenza Italy
Martin Kox Prof hon., Dr, Chef de service département chir viscerale Centre Hospitalier Emile Mayrisch L -Esch-Alzette
Luxembourg
Nicolas Cardin Dr Centre Hospitalier de Douai Douai France
Kamal Mahawar Mr. Sunderland Royal Hospital Sunderland United Kingdom
Dr. Robert Rutledge, CLOS, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
5
6. Program Outline:
Thursday morning, Oct 18
SECTION I: Bariatric Today: Surgery Choices and Outcomes
SECTION II: MGB Results with Large Series
SECION III: MGB/OAB Best Practice; Technical Performance
Thursday Video Techniques Lunch 1
Thursday Afternoon :
SECTION IV: MGB Advantages, Long Term Studies & Other Topics
Friday Morning : MGB; Expert's Experience; TIPS and Tricks ,
Complications and Risks
SECTION V: Beginning The Consensus Conference Final Statement
Video Techniques Lunch II
SECTION VI: The End: The Final Consensus Conference Voting
Statements & Planning for the Future
SATURDAY MORNING Oct 20 2012
SECTION VII: Live MGB Surgery with Cady, ChiChe, Guerolt &
Rutledge
Monday Morning Oct 22, Live Surgery in Lisbon Portugal w Dr. Rui
Riberio/Dr Rutledge
6
7. Updated 10/12/12: Brief Program
Oct 18: Thursday Morning :
Survey Hand Out, Voting Questionnaire for Consensus Instructions
Time Presenter Subject
9:00 Jean Mouiel Introduction: Honorary Chairman
9:10 JM Chevallier Chairman First International Mini-Gastric Bypass / One Anastomosis
Consensus Conference: ; Welcome, Charge to the Meeting; Listen,
Learn, Discuss, Vote, Plan,
SECTION I: Bariatric Today: Surgery Choices and Outcomes
======= Special Guest Presentations: =======
======= The Story of Transition from “Non-MGB” to MGB Surgeon =======
Time Presenter Subject
9:20 Prof hon., Dr Martin Kox, Head Of Service Department Visceral Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Emile
Mayrisch, L -Esch-Alzette, Luxembourg. Personal Reflections; History
of Peptic Ulcer Surgery
9:30 M Narwaria; Past President Obesity Surg Soc India ; My Journey to the MGB /
MGB in India
9:40 JM Chevallier, President Obesity Surg Soc France; What I know about MGB: 7 years
experience
9:50 R Rutledge International Survey Bariatric Surgeons, Reflux & Esophageal cancer
after Sleeve & Band
10:00 Opening Questions, Present Status; Meeting Goals & Future Plans
SECTION II: MGB Results with Large Series
Time Presenter Subject
10:10 R Tacchino My Experience with MGB in Italy
10:20 K Kular My Experience with MGB in India
10:30 M Garciacabaello My Experience with OAB in Spain
10:40 C Peraglie My Experience with MGB in USA
10:50 JP Chevallier My Experience with MGB in France
11:00 J Cady My Experience with MGB in France
11:10 R Rutledge My Experience with MGB; 15 years and 6,000 Patients Later
11:20 MGB Results: Questions and Answers and Votes from Floor
SECION III: MGB/OAB Best Practice; Technical Performance
Time Presenter Subject
11:30 M Musella MGB in Italy; Technical Performance Issues in MGB
11:40 C Peraglie Best Practices; Critical Technical Performance Issues in MGB
11:50 R Ribeiro MGB in Portugal Tech Issues in MGB Gastric Pouch
12:00 Jan Apers Dutch MGB, Tech Issues in MGB; Bypass & Leaks
12:10 J Cady MGB as Rescue for Failed Band
7
8. 12:20 Directed Discussion: Agreements and Controversies Technical Performance of MGB/OAB
==========================================================
Thursday Video Techniques Lunch 1
Garciacaballero 5 min video; 5 MGB Tips
Peraglie 5 min video; 5 MGB Tips
Kular 5 min video; 5 MGB Tips
Videos Questions and Answers and Votes from Floor
==========================================================
Thursday afternoon :
==========================================================
SECTION IV: MGB Advantages, Long Term Studies & Other
Topics
13:30 Sandeep Aggarwal MGB vs Other Surgery
13:40 K Mahawar, MGB Review of Literature on MGB
13:50 Maurizio De Luca Italian Experience with Band, RNY, Sleeve & MGB
14:00 K S Kular: MGB vs Sleeve; Report on 200 Sleeves
14:10 R Tacchino: MGB and BPD; compare and contrast
14:20 A Peters: MGB vs. RYGB
14:30 M Bhandari GERD Band& Sleeve vs. RNY & MGB
14:40 Questions and Answers and Votes from Floor
14:50 Emilio Manno MGB Complications and Management (Leaks)
15:00 M Van den Bossche; MGB in UK; GE Reflux; Band, Sleeve, RNY & MGB
15:10 Dr Cierny My experience with MGB in Czech Republic
15:20 Dr S Shah Minimal Risk of Gastric Cancer after Billroth II, Processed Meat is
Much More Dangerous
15:30 Dr. Weiner Bile Reflux following Mini-Gastric Bypass (Omega Loop)
15:40 Questions, Answers and Votes from the Floor
Directed Discussion: Agreements and Controversies
Panel: Chevalier, Garciacaballero, Tacchino, Kular, Peraglie, Nawaria, Weiner
16:00 Dr Rutledge; Failure of Restrictive Procedures: Coca-Cola & Ice Cream Beat Band &
Sleeve
16:10 Questions and Answers and Votes from Floor
==========================================================
Friday Morning :
MGB; Expert's Experience; TIPS and Tricks , Complications and Risks
==========================================================
SECTION V: Beginning The Consensus Conference Final Statement
8
9. 9:00 K S Kular: Safety, Safety, Safety; Choosing the MGB
9:10 Garciacaballero; An Experts View, OAB Advantages & Advice
9:20 R Tacchino; An Experts View, MGB Advantages
9:30 Dr Narwaria An Expert's View, Advice to the New MGB'er
9:40 Dr Peraglie; Marginal Ulcers: An Expert's View
9:50 Karl-Peter Rheinwalt My Advice on Becoming a New MGB Program
10:00 Questions and Answers and Votes from Floor
11:00 R Rutledge: Renaming the MGB/OAB; Survey Results, Discussion and Voting
1. Survey Results on Renaming the MGB
2. Keep MGB name and OAB name?
3. Create a New Name for both (BII Bypass, Omega Bypass, Sleeve
Bypass
4. Some combination?
5. The MGB is a Bad name
6. The MGB is a Good Name
7. Relation between MGB and OAB (Friends, Brothers or enemies?)
8. Consensus Voting
9. Suggestions:
10. Class Name Single Anastomosis Bypass / Omega Bypass or other
(include MGB AND OAB)
11. Two Sub-groups of SAB/OLB Class:
12. MGB = Type I SAB
13. OAB = Type II SAB
11:10 Questions & Voting
========================================================
Video Techniques Lunch II
Tacchino 5 min video; 5 MGB Tips
Chevallier 5 min video; 5 MGB Tips
Rutledge 5 min video; Revision of MGB (Hint, Its Easy)
========================================================
SECTION VI: The End: The Final Consensus Conference
Voting Statements & Planning for the Future
13:00 Creation of the Consensus Statement; Review of Survey and Voting Results So Far Dr Rutledge
13:10 Questions and Answers and FINAL Votes from Floor
13:20 Pr Tacchino: Band, Sleeve, RNY & MGB Outcomes: Consensus Statement
13:30 M Nawaria Critical Factors in Performance of MGB: Consensus Statement
13:40 Questions and Answers and FINAL Votes from Floor
14:00 Garciacaballero: The Future; Liberté, égalité, fraternité, "Liberty, equality, fraternity
14:10 Discussion and Voting
15:00 Dr. Rutledge, IFSO, IFSO-EC, ASMBS Meeting Financial Report
15:10 Voting CONSENSUS : QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
16:00 Society of MGB/OAB Surgeons; Open Discussion and Voting, Organization and Mutual Aide
18:00 Additional Videos (TBA), Topics from the Floor
9
10. ==============================================================
SATURDAY MORNING Oct 20 2012
SECTION VII: Live MGB Surgery with
Dr’s Cady, ChiChe, Guerolt & Rutledge
Live Interactive Surgery Demonstration
Paris on Saturday October 20, 2012
Clinique Geoffroy Saint Hilaire - Paris59 Rue Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire 75005 Paris, France, 01 44 08 40 00
Dr Cady, Guerolt, Rutledge & Chiche, Two Operating Rooms 6 - 8 MGB 3 Visitors in OR, Video Transmission Conference
Room 25 Surgeons, (Contact DrR@clos.net for special invitation), Possible Dinner Meeting to Follow
Live Interactive Surgery Demonstration
Lisbon Portugal Monday October 22, 2012
Monday Morning Oct 22, Live Surgery in Lisbon Portugal w Dr. Rui Riberio/Dr Rutledge,
(Contact DrR@clos.net for special invitation)
10
11. Saturday Oct 12, 2012
Live Interactive Case Demonstrations of Mini-Gastric Bypass
Live case demonstrations of Mini-Gastric Bypass procedures. To Be Held at Clinique Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire ( On
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Clinique-Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire/135267789853994 ) We have arranged a world
renowned and clinically expert team to demonstrate the technical performance details of the Mini-Gastric Bypass in Paris on
Saturday Oct 20, 2012. For the main operators on Saturday
Dr Jean CADY: Medical Doctor, Member of French National Academy of Surgery, and Member on French Society of
Bariatric Surgery. Laparoscopic surgeon, Bariatric surgeon, Colo-Rectal surgeon.
Dr Renaud Chiche: Medical Doctor, Member on French Society of Bariatric Surgery. Laparoscopic surgeon, Bariatric
surgeon, Colo-Rectal surgeon.
The space is limited to 20 surgeons and sign up is required at Sign-Up: http://satlivemgb.eventbrite.com/
3-day Consensus Conference and Education Course on Mini-Gastric Bypass: The increasing role of Mini-Gastric Bypass
(MGB) in the treatment of morbid obesity we feel dictates the need for greater acquaintance with this type of surgery. In
addition to the 2 day consensus conference we have arranged for a total of 20 surgeons observe and interactive display of live
MGB surgeons with international MGB experts. We believe that all surgeons will find the laparoscopic bariatric mini-training
program to be of value with respect to future professional orientations. Many surgeons have started performing MGB's, and
our goal was to pass on some of the experience with the thousands of prior MGB’s performed by these experts.
The most useful parts of the course will include discussion of the identification and treatment of complications, the use
of new instrumentation, and surgical demonstrations (live interactive). We believe that the participants will very likely note
presentation of novel knowledge by all participants. The 2-day MGB course offers participants high-quality novel knowledge
and excellent training quality, and we predict, significant impact on the quality of their patient care and on their personal
career.
The influence of clinical demonstrations, on the confidence and skills of surgeons, when treating patients with newer
surgical techniques, even when they have the requisite skills is enormous. Studies show that surgeons who receive an
interactive clinical demonstration prior to treating their patients were more confident of their skills and the details of their
performance and as a result their performance improved.
Clinical demonstrations are difficult to arrange and manage, they are time consuming, but they are time well spent.
We are proud to offer an addition to the didactic teaching and discussion of the First International Consensus Conference on
the Mini-Gastric Bypass / One Anastomosis Bypass.
Sign-Up: http://satlivemgb.eventbrite.com/
A Live Interactive Demonstration of Mini-Gastric Bypass Surgery to a limited audience of interested surgeons. We
know that surgeons who observe live demonstrations indicate higher scores for its helpfulness in performance of all the stages
of surgical techniques, when compared to those who had observed a videotaped demonstration.
The Clinic: Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire private hospital
Located in the heart of the oldest district of Paris, the Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire private hospital allies the strength of a
group and the tradition of the excellence. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire private hospital is a multidisciplinary establishment having 196
beds and places dedicated. This clinic includes an intensive care unit for medical and surgical cares and provides all modern
technologies and services.
Sign-Up: http://satlivemgb.eventbrite.com/
Our Commitment to Excellence in Patient Safety as well as Surgeon Education
Please know that we are committed to the highest levels of patient safety and are committed to the patient’s outcomes
from live case demonstrations of the Mini-Gastric Bypass procedures.
11
12. Updated 10/12/12: Full Program
==============================================================
Oct 18: Thursday Morning:
Survey Hand Out, Voting Questionnaire for Consensus Instructions
12
13. Time Presenter Subject
9:00 Jean Mouiel Introduction: Honorary Chairman
9:10 JM Chevallier Chairman First International Mini-Gastric Bypass / One Anastomosis
Consensus Conference: ; Welcome, Charge to the Meeting; Listen, Learn, Discuss, Vote, Plan,
Objectives:
1. Why Are We Here: MGB Excellent Therapy Not Widely Recognized
2. Create a Report of MGB Series: MGB Excellence Best Practices Treatment for Obesity/Metabolic Disease
3. Technical Details of Best Performance of MGB
4. Plan for Support, Adoption and Improvement of MGB around the World
==============================================================
SECTION I: Bariatric Today: Surgery Choices and Outcomes
======= Special Guest Presentations: =======
======= The Story of Transition from “Non-MGB” to MGB Surgeon =======
Time Presenter Subject
9:20 Prof hon., Dr Martin Kox, Head Of Service Department Visceral Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Emile
Mayrisch, L -Esch-Alzette, Luxembourg. Personal Reflections; History of Peptic Ulcer Surgery
Objectives
History of General Surgery
History of the Treatment of Ulcer Disease
Vagotomy and Antrectomy for over 100 years
What Happens When Bariatric Surgeons forget They are General Surgeons
9:30 M Narwaria; Past President Obesity Surg Soc India ; My Journey to the MGB / MGB in India
1. Who Am I: Successful International leader in Bariatric Surgery?
2. Initial Skepticism of MGB
3. Initial Results with MGB
4. Insights into the Mind of an MGB Skeptic
9:40 JM Chevallier, President Obesity Surg Soc France; What I know about MGB: 7 years experience
1. Who Am I: Successful International leader in Bariatric Surgery?
2. Initial Skepticism of MGB
3. Initial Results with MGB
4. Insights into the Mind of an MGB Skeptic
9:50 R Rutledge; International Survey Bariatric Surgeons, Reflux & Esophageal cancer after Sleeve & Band
1. Survey of 112 Bariatric Surgeons from 23 Countries Around the World
2. In Short Band is not very good, 1/3 to ½ of surgeons have abandoned the Band
3. Sleeve and Band => Acid GE Reflux => 2 X Increased risk Esophageal Cancer
4. By Almost Every Measure MGB Outperforms the Band, the Sleeve and the RNY
10:00 Opening Questions, Present Status; Meeting Goals & Future Plans
1. Limitations of Band, Sleeve & RNY
2. Ideal Bariatric Surgery (measures of Success)
3. Results of MGB
4. Recommendations for Type of Bariatric Surgery
1. Why Should Successful Bariatric Surgeons Choose MGB
2. Skepticism of MGB
3. Results of MGB
4. Response to MGB Skeptics
13
14. ==============================================================
SECTION II: MGB Results with Large Series
Time Presenter Subject
10:10 R Tacchino My Experience with MGB in Italy
10:20 K Kular My Experience with MGB in India
10:30 M Garciacabaello My Experience with OAB in Spain
10:40 C Peraglie My Experience with MGB in USA
10:50 JP Chevallier My Experience with MGB in France
11:00 J Cady My Experience with MGB in France
11:10 R Rutledge My Experience with MGB; 15 years and 6,000 Patients Later
11:20 MGB Results: Questions and Answers and Votes from Floor
MGB vs Other Choices for Obese Patients
MGB vs Band
MGB vs Sleeve
MGB vs RNY
==============================================================
SECION III: MGB/OAB Best Practice; Technical Performance
Time Presenter Subject
11:30 M Musella MGB in Italy; Technical Performance Issues in MGB
1. Caliber & Length of sleeve
2. Length of Bypass
3. Anastomosis (handsewn, mechanical, side to side, end to side,linear stapler, circular stapler, Reinforcement of
the staple gastric sleeve line, Reinforcement of the gastric remnant staple line, (seamguard, peri strip, fibrin glue, other
sealant…) Closure of the stapler access (single layer, double layer, mechanical continuous suture, manual continuous suture,
mechanical interrupted stitches, manual interrupted stitches…)
4. Only ONE WAY or Multiple Equally Good Ways to Perform MGB
11:40 C Peraglie Best Practices; Critical Technical Performance Issues in MGB
1. Caliber & Length of sleeve
2. Length of Bypass
3. Anastomosis (handsewn, mechanical, side to side, end to side,linear stapler, circular stapler, Reinforcement of
the staple gastric sleeve line, Reinforcement of the gastric remnant staple line, (seamguard, peri strip, fibrin glue, other
sealant…) Closure of the stapler access (single layer, double layer, mechanical continuous suture, manual continuous suture,
mechanical interrupted stitches, manual interrupted stitches…)
4. Only ONE WAY or Multiple Equally Good Ways to Perform MGB
11:50 R Ribeiro MGB in Portugal Tech Issues in MGB Gastric Pouch
The Gastric Pouch
Time 8 min
1. Surgeon/Patient Position, Ports Position/Placement,
2. Location of pouch initiation, Skeletonization of lesser curve,
3. Creation of the pouch:
Use of the staple gun, Covidien/Ethicon: Pros & Cons,
Location and angle of first staple cartridge
Cartridge selection: White/Blue/Gold/Green,
Delays: Before and During Staple Gun Firing
4. Wisdom of Old Men:
14
15. Fear “Thickness”,
Fear The Tube/Bougie/NG tube
Fear the Angle of His
12:00 Jan Apers Dutch MGB, Tech Issues in MGB; Bypass & Leaks
1. Dutch Experience with MGB
2. Running the Bowel, Distance of the bypass, Tailoring the length bypass
3. Leaks after MGB
4. Managing Leaks
12:10 J Cady MGB as Rescue for Failed Band
1. Band is Good choice?
2. Failure Rate (Weight Regain, Reflux) and Leak Rate
3. FU Band and MGB, complications and Weight Loss
4. Band vs MGB; 50% vs 90% Success
12:20 Directed Discussion: Agreements and Controversies Technical Performance of MGB/OAB
Panel: Chevalier, Garciacaballero, Tacchino, Kular, Peraglie, Nawaria, Weiner
==============================================================
Thursday Video Techniques Lunch 1
Garciacaballero 5 min video; 5 MGB Tips
Peraglie 5 min video; 5 MGB Tips
Kular 5 min video; 5 MGB Tips
Videos Questions and Answers and Votes from Floor
==============================================================
Thursday afternoon :
==========================================================
SECTION IV: MGB Advantages, Long Term Studies & Other
Topics
13:30 Sandeep Aggarwal MGB vs Other Surgery
1. Band vs MGB
2. BPD vs MGB
3. RNY vs MGB
4. Sleeve vs MGB
13:40 K Mahawar, MGB Review of Literature on MGB
1. Review of MGB Publications
2. MGB Advantages
3. MGB Disadvantages
4. MGB: Conclusions from the medical Literature
13:50 Maurizio De Luca Italian Experience with Band, RNY, Sleeve & MGB
1. MGB: Excess Weight Loss
2. MGB Op Time
3. Weight Regain
4. MGB: Reflux and Esophageal Cancer
15
16. 14:00 K S Kular: MGB vs Sleeve; Report on 200 Sleeves
1. Sleeve is Good choice for Many
2. Failure Rate (Weight Regain, Reflux) and Leak Rate
3. 3 yr FU Sleeve and MGB, Pouch Dilation and Weight Loss
4. Lee; Sleeve vs MGB, 50% vs 90% Success
14:10 R Tacchino: MGB and BPD; compare and contrast
1. BPD is Good choice for Many
2. Failure Rate (Weight Regain, Reflux) and Leak Rate
3. 3 yr FU BPD and MGB, Pouch Dilation and Weight Loss
4. BPD, Band, Sleeve, MGB My Advice and Perspective
14:20 A Peters: MGB vs. RYGB
1. RNY is Good choice for Many
2. Failure Rate (Weight Regain, Reflux) and Leak Rate
3. FU RNY and MGB, Bowel Obstruction and Weight Regain
4. RNY, BPD, Band, Sleeve, MGB My Advice and Perspective
14:30 M Bhandari GERD Band& Sleeve vs. RNY & MGB
I. Esophageal Cancer, Deadly and Increasing Worldwide
II. GE Reflux Primary Cause of Esophageal Cancer
III. Band & Sleeve CAUSE GE Reflux in 30% of Patients!
IV. RNY & MGB Resolve GE Reflux in 80%+
V. Band and Sleeve May Be PreCancerous Lesions
VI. Band and Sleeve Dr's Need to Warn Patients of this Deadly Risk
14:40 Questions and Answers and Votes from Floor
14:50 Emilio Manno MGB Complications and Management (Leaks)
1. Italian Experience of MGB
2. Anemia
3. Ulcer
4. Inadequate / Excess Weight Loss / Other Complications
15:00 M Van den Bossche; MGB in UK; GE Reflux; Band, Sleeve, RNY & MGB
1. UK Experience of MGB
2. Anemia
3. Ulcer
4. Inadequate / Excess Weight Loss / Other Complications
15:10 Dr Cierny My experience with MGB in Czech Republic
1. Ulcer after MGB vs RNY
2. PreOp and Post Op Management Prevention
3. Treatment of Gastritis / Ulcer
4. No Smoking, NSAIDs, Rx H.Pylori, Anti-Acids (PPI’s, H2 Blockers), Bismuth subsalicylate, Yogurt, No Smoking!!,
Soda, Coffee, Etoh, Green Tea, Meat, Hand washing, Careful food prep, Safe water source
15:20 Dr S Shah Minimal Risk of Gastric Cancer after Billroth II, Processed Meat is Much
More Dangerous
1. Gastric Cancer Declining; Esophageal Cancer Rising
2. BII in Few Studies Assoc with Gastric Ca But these are Ulcer Pts (H. Pylori)
3. Bile Reflux Rare and Easily treated while maintaining Weight Loss
4. GE Reflux Doubles the Risk of Esophageal Ca; Warn Patients
16
17. 15:30 Dr. Weiner Bile Reflux following Mini-Gastric Bypass (Omega Loop)
1. Bile Reflux Ulcer after MGB vs RNY
2. PreOp and Post Op Management / Prevention
3. Treatment of Gastritis / Ulcer
4. No Smoking, NSAIDs, Rx H.Pylori, Anti-Acids (PPI’s, H2 Blockers), Bismuth subsalicylate, Yogurt, No Smoking!!,
Soda, Coffee, Etoh, Green Tea, Meat, Hand washing, Careful food prep, Safe water source, *** Endoscopy ***, *** Surgery
Revision ***
15:40 Questions, Answers and Votes from the Floor
Directed Discussion: Agreements and Controversies
Panel: Chevalier, Garciacaballero, Tacchino, Kular, Peraglie, Nawaria, Weiner
1. Long Term Outcome of Band, Sleeve, RNY, BPD
Long Term MGB Outcomes
3. Band, Sleeve, RNY, BPD vs. MGB Recommendations
Always Choose MGB (Rutledge Doctrine)
Always Choose Band, Sleeve, RNY, BPD
Tailored Approach
When to choose Band, Sleeve, RNY, BPD
When to choose MGB
4. BPD vs. MGB Need for Further Study
16:00 Dr Rutledge; Failure of Restrictive Procedures: Coca-Cola & Ice Cream Beat Band &
Sleeve
1. Bariatrics: A History of Failure, A Cautionary Tale
2. Remember the History of the Lap Band
3. Enthusiasm, Tempered Support, Early Concerns, Failure
4. Humans are POOR Decision makers
16:10 Questions and Answers and Votes from Floor
Time: 1 hour
Review of Survey Questions & Voting
Expert Judgment & Voting: Outcome Band, Sleeve, RNY, BPD
Expert Judgment & Voting: Outcome MGB
Band, Sleeve, RNY, BPD vs. MGB
=== Consensus Recommendations ===
Always Choose MGB (Rutledge Doctrine)
Never Choose MGB (ASMBS Doctrine)
Tailored Approach
=== Consensus Recommendations ===
When to choose Band, Sleeve, RNY, BPD
When to choose MGB
Friday Morning:
MGB; Expert's Experience; TIPS and Tricks , Complications and Risks
==========================================================
SECTION V: Beginning The Consensus Conference Final Statement
9:00 K S Kular: Safety, Safety, Safety; Choosing the MGB
9:10 Garciacaballero; An Experts View, OAB Advantages & Advice
17
18. 1. My Consideration of OAB
2. My Patients, My Results of OAB
3. FIVE Core Advantages of OAB
4. Advice from My Experience
9:20 R Tacchino; An Experts View, MGB Advantages
1. My Consideration of MGB
2. My Patients, My Results of MGB
3. Complications and Outcomes
4. Advice from My Experience
9:30 Dr Narwaria An Expert's View, Advice to the New MGB'er
1. Why Should Successful Bariatric Surgeons Choose MGB
2. Criticism by Colleagues of MGB
3. Results of MGB / Results of Sleeve, Band and RNY
4. Response to MGB Skeptics/Critics
9:40 Dr Peraglie; Marginal Ulcers: An Expert's View
9:50 Karl-Peter Rheinwalt My Advice on Becoming a New MGB Program
1. Why face Criticism to Offer the MGB
2. My Decision to Choose MGB
3. The Story of the Struggle to Offer MGB
4. Advice from My Experience
10:00 Questions and Answers and Votes from Floor
11:00 R Rutledge: Renaming the MGB/OAB; Survey Results, Discussion and Voting
1. Survey Results on Renaming the MGB
2. Keep MGB name and OAB name?
3. Create a New Name for both (BII Bypass, Omega Bypass, Sleeve Bypass
4. Some combination?
5. The MGB is a Bad name
6. The MGB is a Good Name
7. Relation between MGB and OAB (Friends, Brothers or enemies?)
8. Consensus Voting
9. Suggestions:
10. Class Name Single Anastomosis Bypass / Omega Bypass or other (include MGB AND OAB)
11. Two Sub-groups of SAB/OLB Class:
12. MGB = Type I SAB
13. OAB = Type II SAB
11:10 Questions & Voting 1. Consensus Judgment of Experts and Conference on the MGB
1. Patient / Surgeons Advantages of MGB
2. Consensus Judgment of Experts and Conference on the
3. MOST Critical Advantages
4. Consensus Judgment of Experts and Conference on the Dangers of MGB
Video Techniques Lunch II
Tacchino 5 min video; 5 MGB Tips
18
19. Chevallier 5 min video; 5 MGB Tips
Rutledge 5 min video; Revision of MGB (Hint, Its Easy)
========================================================
SECTION VI: The End: The Final Consensus Conference Voting
Statements & Planning for the Future
==============================================================
13:00 Creation of the Consensus Statement; Review of Survey and Voting Results Review of Survey and
Voting Results So Far Dr Rutledge Report on Survey of 100 Bariatric Surgeons from 23 countries and 39,000
cases
In Short: Band is Less than Sleeve is less than RNY is Less than MGB
Band and Sleeve: Cause Esophageal Reflux and Esophageal Cancer
Conclusions the Experts Tell Us in the Survey
13:10 Questions and Answers and FINAL Votes from Floor
13:20 Pr Tacchino: Band, Sleeve, RNY & MGB Outcomes: Consensus Statement
PreOp Factors
Operative Factors:
Gastric Sleeve
Bypass
Gastro-J
Anesthesia
Early Post Op Management
Management Leaks
Long Term Management
13:30 M Nawaria Critical Factors in Performance of MGB: Consensus Statement
13:40 Questions and Answers and FINAL Votes from Floor
Consensus Statement Expert Judgment of Band, Sleeve, RNY
Consensus Statement Expert Judgment of Band, Sleeve, Esophageal Cancer
Consensus Statement Expert Judgment of MGB
14:00 Garciacaballero: The Future; Liberté, égalité, fraternité, "Liberty, equality, fraternity
14:10 Discussion and Voting "Liberty, equality, fraternity (brotherhood)"
Time 8 min
Organization and Mutual Support
Consensus Statement
Volunteer Proctors and Surgeon Resources
Direct and Remote technical advice
Research Support
Collaborative Study
Database
Repeat Meeting Next Year (Garciacaballero)
15:00 Dr. Rutledge, IFSO, IFSO-EC, ASMBS Meeting Financial Report
15:10 Voting CONSENSUS : QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Suggestions for organizing and supporting present surgeons and inviting new surgeons
Vote on consensus statement
Who will volunteer to help new surgeons
Direct and Remote technical advice
19
20. Research Support
Collaborative Study
Database
Meet again Next Year? Location? Timing
Research Support
16:00 Society of MGB/OAB Surgeons; Open Discussion and Voting, Organization and Mutual Aide
IFSO 2013 Istanbul Turkey, 1 Day Interest Group
Submit Abstracts (Rutledge will help)
IFSO-EC Invited to Present at the "Bariatric Club"
Interest Group at IFSO-EC 2013?
Other suggestions (French, English, Italian, German, Spanish, Indian Society meetings)
IFSO Turkey
IFSO-EC Bariatric Club
Organize 1 day Post Grad Course at IFSO-EC 2013
MGB Presentations at French, English, Italian, German, Spanish, Indian Society meetings?
Society of MGB/OAB Surgeons; Open Discussion and Voting
Organization and Mutual Aide
==============================================================
TBA SECTION VII: Live Surgery with
Live Surgery Demonstration on Saturday Oct 20
Clinique Geoffroy Saint Hilaire - Paris
59 Rue Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire 75005 Paris, France
01 44 08 40 00
Dr Rutledge & Dr Chiche
Two Operating Rooms 6 - 8 MGB
3 Visitors in OR, Video Transmission Conference Room 25 Surgeons
(Contact DrR@clos.net for special invitation)
Possible Dinner Meeting to Follow
20
21. Esophageal Cancer & GE Reflux: Brief Review
The United States has experienced an alarming and unexplained increase in the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma
(EAC) since the 1970s. Esophageal adenocarcinoma is the fastest growing cancer in the western world. A dramatic rise in one
of the deadliest types of cancers may be linked to the increasing rates of acid reflux and gastrointestinal disorders. Cancers of
the esophagus and stomach are among the deadliest of all cancers with more than 80% of those affected dying within five
years.Although cancers of the stomach (gastric cancer) have been steadily declining over the last 50 years, studies show the
incidence of a cancer affecting the esophagus (esophageal adenocarcinoma) has risen by about 600% over the past few
decades.
In the report, published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, researchers reviewed studies on cancers located where
the stomach ends and esophagus begins, referred to as the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ).
The major risk factors for this type of cancer are gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and its associated conditions,
such as Barrett's esophagus. In Barrett's esophagus, precancerous changes are present. Other associated risk factors include
alcohol and tobacco use, obesity, and eating a diet low in fruits and vegetables.
Studies have shown that the part of the esophagus closest to the stomach is more exposed to concentrated gastric acid
and a variety of agents that may contribute to the increased risk of cancer in this region.
Despite advances in screening methods for this type of cancer, researchers say more research is needed to find new
ways to prevent the disease and detect it early.
Major risk factors for this cancer are Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) and Barrett's esophagus.
In one study frequent acid reflux (≥1 time/week) accounted for the greatest single risk factor of Esophageal Cancer
36%
1. GE Reflux => Esophageal Cancer
2. Sleeve => Reflux
3. Band => Reflux
4. Esophageal Cancer in Band and Sleeve
5. Sleeve & Band => GE Reflux => Esophageal Cancer
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 May;10(5):475-80.e1. Epub 2012 Jan 13. Erosive reflux disease increases risk for
esophageal adenocarcinoma, compared with nonerosive reflux. Erichsen R, Robertson D, Farkas DK, Pedersen L, Pohl H, Baron
JA, Sørensen HT. Source Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark. re@dce.au.dk
In the study cohort, 26,194 of the patients over 3/4 (77%) had erosive reflux disease and
37 subsequently developed esophageal adenocarcinoma after a
mean follow-up time of ONLY 7.4 years.
Their absolute risk after 10 years was 0.24% (0.15%-0.32%).
The incidence of cancer among patients with erosive reflux disease was
significantly greater than that expected for the general population
Over Twice as high (standardized incidence ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.6-3.0).
21
22. Often a pillow, doughnut or soft sand bag is placed by
Rutledge Version of Mini- the head
Gastric Bypass: Tools, EndoTracheal tube placement and Vital signs assessed
Then and only then the patient is replaced to flat
Tips, Techniques; Special supine and the patient is prepped and draped in the usual
needs for the Surgery fashion
(Instruments, etc.) The surgeon
stands on the patient's Right
Usually requiring a STEP Stool
========== The Camera is immobilized by a self retaining camera
First: Warning NO anticoagulants, NSAIDs holder and one assistant is on the patient's Left side
========== Only two scrub for
PATIENT POSITIONING: the case
The patient is The Surgeon looks across the table from patient's right
supine (not lithotomy) to left to a screen at the head of the patient located 45
The table will be inclined to MAXIMUM Trendelenburg degrees
position and Full tilt to the Left Side UP between the patient's head and the patient's left arm
The requires a simple but very important patient This means that this are must be kept free of IV poles
immobilization on the table to ensure patient safety and and anesthesia paraphernalia
make sure the ==========
large patient does not move during the operation BOUGIE
Both arms are out at 90 degrees the knees We
are use 24 - 32 French (NO Larger, No smaller)
"broken' to an angle of 45 degrees and two Large pillows In a pinch we can use Ewald Tube
are placed Or Gastroenterologist Red Weighted Dilating Bougie
beneath the knees NO 36-38 Bougies
The Heels are padded ==========
SCDs are applied INSTRUMENTS
and then most importantly The instruments need are simple but should be of high
3 Three LARGE Leather or Polyester Straps (Seat Belts) quality.
are applied to the legs The Mayo stand should contain
At the upper thigh 1 scalpel of any type
the lower thigh Veress needle
and mid tibia 5 Ports in total
Then to reassure all of the anesthesia, Of the 5 ports;
nursing and other attendants 4 ports are 12mm ports (not 10 or 11mm) 12 mm ports
with all of the team watching that can accept the
The table is slowly and carefully moved to MAXIMUM stapler (12 mm) as well as the 5 mm operating
Reverse instruments.
Trendelenburg and Full Tilt Left side up Of the 5 ports the remaining port is a single 5mm port
Any adjustments are made Three separate 5 mm
22
23. graspers of excellent quality, at least 2 should be Locking to make a 12mm incision 1 and 1/2 palm widths below the
Graspers xiphi sternum
One of the 3 three, This may vary slightly with patient size but is
5 mm graspers should ideally have longer jaws to allow a remarkably constant
firm safe The 12 mm "Camera port" is used to enter the abdomen
locked grip on the intestine The surgeon
In case of emergency there should be two good quality uses
needle drivers (in most cases not needed, but should be the camera to briefly explore the abdomen and note the
on the back location of the
table) Veress needle and the Veress is removed under direct
Stapler, Ideally Covidien 60 mm blue or Purple although vision
Johnson Can be used as backup The final 4 ports are now placed
No other Open Surgery instruments on the back table The locations are as follows:
Skin closure is with 1 (one) single staple in each port 1, One 5 mm port several cm medial to the left axillary
and for this we need a single pair of Adson's forceps with line 2-3 finger breadths below the costal margin
teeth and 1, One 12 mm port left mid-clavicular line 2-3 finger
commercial staple gun breadths below
No suction is on the table the costal margin
We use the Harmonic scalpel if possible 1, One 12 mm port Midline 2-3 finger breadths below the
No sutures open. xiphi sternum
but have 3-O 1, One 12 mm port Right mid-clavicular line 2-3 finger
Vicryl on sh needle available if necessary, breadths below
Do Not Open the costal margin
=========================== Total 5 Ports
A brief summary of the procedure may be of interest In roughly a "Diamond" pattern
The surgeons approaches the patient in flat supine 1 Midline 1 and 1/2 palms below xiphi sternum (the
position from the patient's left side. Primary But not only,"
The abdomen is examined and the location of the left Camera Port")
lateral extent of the rectus sheath 1 Left Anterior Axillary Line 5 mm grasper / retractor port
approximately 4-5 finger breadths below the left costal 1 Right Mid-clavicular line port, used for stapler and
margin is camera at
estimated. several points during the case for only a few moments
With 2 Primary Surgeon's Working Ports
the "go ahead" (Right Hand and Left hand)
from anesthesia a 5 mm incision is made and the Veress Left hand = Midline Port
needle is Right hand = Patient's
advanced into the abdominal cavity and insufflated. Left Mid clavicular Line port
The surgeon Patient
moves is now, with approval of anesthesia,
to the patient's right side and after insufflation the scalpel tilted to Maximum Reverse Trendelenburg and left side up
is used Warning poor anesthesia can lead to hypotension
23
24. Anesthesia must be prepared and educated as tothe Attention turned to the Left Gutter
planned revers Trendelenburg positioning and Retract the omentum medially and Identify Ligament of
drug use so to avoid hypotension when tilting the patient Treitz
Poor anesthesia Run the bowel 2 m
= No surgery Count to 60
Now the steps in brief for the operation ==========
The left hand grasper elevates the left lobe of the Grasp and lock the loop of bowel with larger 5mm
liver and the harmonic is used to dissect the lesser curve atraumatic locking
of the grasper
stomach at the junction of the body and the Antrum 5-10 Gastrotomy with harmonic
minutes Change camera to R Lateral port
Stapler is passed via the Left Hand Working port into Enterotomy
the abdomen and the stomach pouch creation is under Pass 60 mm Covidien Stapler in via the "Camera" port
way Fire to form GJ
Using the Left Hand working port or the Right side port Manipulate 24-30 mm bougie across the anastomosis
second stapler is fired Change camera back to camera port and pass 60 mm
Surgeon stapler
and anesthesia now discuss Bougie placement in via the Right lateral port
The bougie is advanced and retracted under direct vision Close the GJ
========== Case over
Surgeon Op time 35 minutes
and anesthesia agree on bougie movement commands:
Advance
Retract
Tap Tap (A very tiny rapid in and out motion that aids in
bougie identification)
Now all staplers fired from the Right hand Working port
3-5 staples to EG Junction
WARNING FEAR THE EG JUNCTION
Stay lateral to EG Junction
Only fools and Sleeve surgeons dissect near the EG
Junction. It is not necessary for MGB and it is dangerous
With division of 80-95% of the stomach the area lateral
to EGJ is visualized
If necessary the short gastrics are divided under direct
vision with careful and meticulous dissection
Case Mantra "NO BLEEDING"
The division of the stomach and creation of the pouch is
completed
Op time 15-20 minutes
==========
24
25. References
Mini-Gastric Bypass References
Obes Surg. 2012 Sep 11. [Epub ahead of print] with laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (LMGBP) and laparoscopic
Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Vs. Mini-gastric Bypass for the sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Three patients with genetic diagnosis
Treatment of Morbid Obesity: a 10-Year Experience. Lee of PWS and body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m(2) were
WJ, Ser KH, Lee YC, Tsou JJ, Chen SC, Chen JC. referred for bariatric surgery. All of them had completed 2-year
Department of Surgery, Min-Sheng General Hospital, National postoperative follow-up. Body weight, BMI, and ghrelin levels
Taiwan University, No. 168, Chin Kuo Road, Tauoyan, Taiwan, were recorded before and after surgery. They were two females
Republic of China, wjlee_obessurg_tw@yahoo.com.tw. and one male. Their age ranged from 15 to 23 years old, and the
BACKGROUND: mean BMI was 46.7 kg/m(2) (range 44-50). Two patients
Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is considered the underwent LSG and one patient underwent LMGBP. After a
gold standard for the treatment of morbid obesity but is median follow-up of 33 months (range 24-36 months), mean
technically challenging and results in significant perioperative weight loss and percentage of excessive weight loss at 2 years
complications. While laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (LMGB) has were 32.5 kg (24.9-38.3 kg) and 63.2 % (range 50.5-86.2 %),
been reported to be a simple and effective treatment for morbid respectively. The mean fasting active ghrelin level decreased from
obesity, controversy exists. Long-term follow-up data from a large 1,134.2 pg/ml preoperatively to 519.8 pg/ml 1 year after surgery.
number of patients comparing LMGB to LRYGB are lacking. No major complication was observed. Iron deficiency anemia was
METHODS: observed in the patient who underwent LMGBP. Significant
Between October 2001 and September 2010, 1,657 reduction of body weight and level of serum ghrelin can be
patients who received gastric bypass surgery (1,163 for achieved with minimal morbidity by LSG or LMGBP in patients
LMGB and 494 for LRYGB) for their morbid obesity were with PWS.
recruited from our comprehensive obesity surgery center. Patients
who received revision surgeries were excluded. Minimum follow- 22923339
up was 1 year (mean 5.6 years, from 1 to 10 years). The
operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and
operative complications were assessed. Late complication, 3.
changes in body weight loss, BMI, quality of life, and Obes Surg. 2012 May;22(5):697-703.
comorbidities were determined at follow-up. Changes in quality of One thousand consecutive mini-gastric bypass: short- and long-
life were assessed using the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index. term outcome.
RESULTS: Noun R, Skaff J, Riachi E, Daher R, Antoun NA, Nasr M.
There was no difference in preoperative clinical parameters Department of Digestive Surgery, Hôtel-Dieu de France Hospital
between the two groups. and University Saint Joseph Medical School, Bd Alfred Naccache,
Surgical time was significantly longer for LRYGB (159.2 Achrafieh, BP 166830 Beirut, Lebanon. rnoun@wise.net.lb
vs. 115.3 min for LMGB, p < 0.001). There is growing evidence that mini-gastric bypass (MGB) is a
The major complication rate was borderline higher for safe and effective procedure. Operative outcome and long-term
LRYGB (3.2 vs. 1.8 %, p = 0.07). follow-up of a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent MGB
At 5 years after surgery, the mean BMI was lower in LMGB are reported. The data on 1,000 patients who underwent MGB
than LRYGB (27.7 vs. 29.2, p < 0.05) and from November 2005 to January 2011 at an academic institution
LMGB also had a higher excess weight loss than LRYGB were reviewed. Mean age was 33.15 ± 10.17 years (range, 14-
(72.9 vs. 60.1 %, p < 0.05). 72), preoperative BMI was 42.5 ± 6.3 kg/m(2) (range, 26-75),
Postoperative gastrointestinal quality of life increased significantly mean preoperative weight was 121.6 ± 23.8 kg (range, 71-240),
after operation in both groups without any significant difference and 663 were women. Operative time and length of stay for
at 5 years. Obesity-related clinical parameters improved in both primary vs. revisional MGB were 89 ± 12.8 min vs. 144 ± 15 min
groups without significant difference, but LMGB had a lower (p < 0.01) and l.85 ± 0.8 day vs. 2.35 ± 1.89 day (p < 0.01). No
hemoglobin level than LRYGB. deaths occurred within 30 days of surgery. Short-term
Late revision rate was similar between LRYGB and LMGB (3.6 vs. complications occurred in 2.7% for primary vs. 11.6% for
2.8 %, p = 0.385). revisionnal MGB (p < 0.01). Five (0.5%) patients presented with
CONCLUSIONS: leakage from the gastric tube but none had anastomotic leakage.
This study demonstrates that LMGBP can be regarded as Four (0.4%) patients, all with revisional MGB, presented with
a simpler and safer alternative to LRYGB with similar severe bile reflux and were cured by stapling the afferent loop
efficacy at a 10-year experience. and by a latero-lateral jejunojejunostomy. Excessive weight loss
occurred in four patients; two were reversed and two were
23011462 converted to sleeve gastrectomy. Maximal percent excess weight
loss (EWL) of 72.5% occurred at 18 months. Weight regain
subsequently occurred with a mean variation of -3.9% EWL at 60
2. months. The 50% EWL was achieved for 95% of patients at 18
Obes Surg. 2012 Aug 26. [Epub ahead of print] months and for 89.8% at 60 months. MGB is an effective,
Ghrelin Level and Weight Loss After Laparoscopic Sleeve relatively low-risk, and low-failure bariatric procedure. In addition,
Gastrectomy and Gastric Mini-Bypass for Prader-Willi Syndrome in it can be easily revised, converted, or reversed.
Chinese.
Fong AK, Wong SK, Lam CC, Ng EK. 22411569
Division of Upper GI Surgery, Department of Surgery, Prince of 4.
Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012 Apr;14(4):365-72. Epub 2011 Dec
China. 16.
Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) is a chromosomal disorder Role of bariatric-metabolic surgery in the treatment of obese type
characterized by the presence of hyperghrelinemia, hyperphagia, 2 diabetes with body mass index <35 kg/m2: a literature review.
and obesity. The optimal treatment for PWS patient remains Reis CE, Alvarez-Leite JI, Bressan J, Alfenas RC.
controversial. Here, we present our experience of treating PWS School of Health Sciences, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil.
25
26. caioedureis@gmail.com
Bariatric surgery has been used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus 22105765
(T2DM); however, its efficacy is still debatable. This literature 6.
review analyzed articles that evaluated the effects of bariatric Obes Surg. 2012 Mar;22(3):502-6.
surgery in treatment of T2DM in obese patients with a body mass Bariatric surgery in Asia in the last 5 years (2005-2009).
index (BMI) of <35 kg/m(2). A paired t test was applied for the Lomanto D, Lee WJ, Goel R, Lee JJ, Shabbir A, So JB, Huang CK,
analysis of pre- and postintervention mean BMI, fasting plasma Chowbey P, Lakdawala M, Sutedja B, Wong SK,Kitano S, Chin KF,
glucose (FPG), and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) values. A Dineros HC, Wong A, Cheng A, Pasupathy S, Lee SK,
significant (P<0.001) reduction in BMI (from 29.95±0.51 kg/m(2) Pongchairerks P, Giang TB.
to 24.83±0.44 kg/m(2)), FPG (from 207.86±8.51 mg/dL to Department of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgical Centre,
113.54±4.93 mg/dL), and A1c (from 8.89±0.15% to National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, 119074,
6.35±0.18%) was observed in 29 articles (n=675). T2DM Singapore, Singapore.
resolution (A1c <7% without antidiabetes medication) was Erratum in
achieved in 84.0% (n=567) of the subjects. T2DM remission, • Obes Surg. 2012 Feb;22(2):345. Fah, Chin Kin [corrected to
control, and improvement were observed in 55.41%, 28.59%, Chin, Kin-Fah].
and 14.37%, respectively. Only 1.63% (n=11) of the subjects Obesity is a major public health concern around the world,
presented similar or worse glycemic control after the surgery. including Asia. Bariatric surgery has grown in popularity to
T2DM remission (A1c <6% without antidiabetes medication) was combat this rising trend. An e-mail questionnaire survey was sent
higher after mini-gastric bypass(72.22%) and laparoscopic/Roux- to all the representative Asia-Pacific Metabolic and Bariatric
en-Y gastric bypass (70.43%). According to the Foregut and Surgery Society (APMBSS) members of 12 leading Asian countries
Hindgut Hypotheses, T2DM results from the imbalance between to provide bariatric surgery data for the last 5 years (2005-2009).
the incretins and diabetogenic signals. The procedures that The data provided by representative members were discussed at
remove the proximal intestine and do ileal transposition the 6th International APMBSS Congress held at Singapore
contribute to the increase of glucagon-like peptide-1 levels and between 21st and 23rd October 2010. Eleven nations except
improvement of insulin sensitivity. These findings provide China responded. Between 2005 and 2009, a total of 6,598
preliminary evidence of the benefits of bariatric-metabolic surgery bariatric procedures were performed on 2,445 men and 4,153
on glycemic control of T2DM obese subjects with a BMI of women with a mean age of 35.5 years (range, 18-69years) and
<35 kg/m(2). However, more clinical trials are needed to mean BMI of 44.27 kg/m(2) (range, 31.4-73 kg/m(2)) by 155
investigate the metabolic effects of bariatric surgery in T2DM practicing surgeons. Almost all of the operations were performed
remission on pre-obese and obese class I patients. laparoscopically (99.8%). For combined years 2005-2009, the
four most commonly performed procedures were laparoscopic
22176155 adjustable gastric banding (LAGB, 35.9%), laparoscopic standard
5. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB, 24.3%), laparoscopic sleeve
Updates Surg. 2011 Dec;63(4):239-42. Epub 2011 Nov 22. gastrectomy (LSG, 19.5%), and laparoscopic mini gastric bypass
Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass: short-term single-institute (15.4%). Comparing the 5-year trend from 2004 to 2009, the
experience. absolute numbers of bariatric surgery procedures in Asia
Piazza L, Ferrara F, Leanza S, Coco D, Sarvà S, Bellia A, Di Stefano increased from 381 to 2,091, an increase of 5.5 times. LSG
C, Basile F, Biondi A. increased from 1% to 24.8% and LRYGB from 12% to 27.7%, a
General and Emergency Surgery Department, Garibaldi Hospital, relative increase of 24.8 and 2.3 times, whereas LAGB and mini
Catania, Italy, lpiazza267@gmail.com. gastric bypass decreased from 44.6% to 35.6% and 41.7% to
The elevated variety of procedures proposed for surgical 6.7%, respectively. The absolute growth rate of bariatric surgery
treatment of obesity in the last few years suggests the necessity in Asia over the last 5 years was 449%.
to find an ideal operation. Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass
(LMGB) was developed to obtain better results with lesser 22033767
morbidity and mortality. LMGB was introduced by Rutledge, in 7.
1997, and it consists of a long lesser-curvature tube with a Obes Surg. 2011 Nov;21(11):1758-65.
terminolateral gastroenterostomy 180 cm distal to the Treitz ESR1, FTO, and UCP2 genes interact with bariatric surgery
ligament. From July 1995 to May 2011 we have performed 552 affecting weight loss and glycemic control in severely obese
bariatric operations, among them we have operated 197 patients.
laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (Fig. 1). There were 147 female Liou TH, Chen HH, Wang W, Wu SF, Lee YC, Yang WS, Lee WJ.
(75%) and 50 male (25%) with the mean age of 37.9 years Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Shuang Ho
(range 20-55) and the mean BMI of 52.9 kg/m(2). All procedures Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
were completed laparoscopically, without conversion and the Erratum in
mean operative time was 120 min (range from 90 to 170 min). • Obes Surg. 2012 Jan;22(1):194.
The average postoperative stay was 5.0 days. We report one case BACKGROUND:
of mortality for pulmonary septic complications. Major Significant variability in weight loss and glycemic control has been
complications were two cases of pulmonary embolism (treated in observed in obese patients receiving bariatric surgery. Genetic
ICU), six cases of melena on seventh postoperative day and three factors may play a role in the different outcomes.
cases of anastomotic ulcers resolved with high doses of PPI. We METHODS:
registered a significant reduction of BMI and percentage of Five hundred and twenty severely obese patients with body mass
excess weight after surgery with a significant improvement in index (BMI) ≥35 were recruited. Among them, 149 and 371
obesity-related comorbidities including blood pressure, subjects received laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB)
hyperglycemia, blood lipid, uric acid, and liver function. An ideal and laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (LMGB), respectively. All
weight loss operation should be effective, easy to perform and individuals were genotyped for five obesity-related single
safe. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y GastricBypass is actually the "gold- nucleotide polymorphisms on ESR1, FTO, PPARγ, and UCP2 genes
standard" technique but LMGB seems to be an attractive to explore how these genes affect weight loss and glycemic
alternative: shorter operative time, with less morbidity and control after bariatric surgery at the 6th month.
mortality, easier to teach and to perform. Another advantage RESULTS:
could be the presence of a single anastomosis alone reducing the Obese patients with risk genotypes on rs660339-UCP2 had
possibility of leaks. greater decrease in BMI after LAGB compared to patients with
26
28. hyperglycemia in 70% of non-obese T2DM patients (BMI 25-30 bypass (LMGB) or adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) with
kg/m(2)). Although long-term follow-up data are required, early complete clinical data at baseline and at two years were enrolled
operative outcomes were satisfactory in terms of glycemic control for analysis. Decision Tree, Logistic Regression and Discriminant
and safety of the procedure. analysis technologies were used to predict weight loss. Overall
classification capability of the designed diagnostic models was
21165621 evaluated by the misclassification costs.
11. RESULTS:
Obes Surg. 2011 Aug;21(8):1209-19. Two hundred fifty-one patients consisting of 68 men and 183
Reasons and outcomes of reoperative bariatric surgery for failed women was studied; with mean age 33 years. Mean +/- SD
and complicated procedures (excluding adjustable gastric weight loss at 2 year was 74.5 +/- 16.4 kg. During two years of
banding). follow up, two-hundred and five (81.7%) patients had successful
Patel S, Szomstein S, Rosenthal RJ. weight reduction while 46 (18.3%) were failed to reduce body
Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, weight. Operation methods, alanine transaminase (ALT),
FL 33331, USA. aspartate transaminase (AST), white blood cell counts (WBC),
BACKGROUND: insulin and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels were the predictive
The rise of bariatric surgery has lead to an increasing number of factors for successful weight reduction.
reoperations for failed bariatric procedures. The reasons and CONCLUSION:
types of these operations are varied in nature and remain to be Decision tree model was a better classification models than
defined. traditional logistic regression and discriminant analysis in view of
METHODS: predictive accuracies.
A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was
conducted to identify patients who underwent laparoscopic 20214230
revisional surgery for non-gastric banding-related bariatric
procedures between 2001 and 2008. 13.
RESULTS: J Chir (Paris). 2009 Feb;146(1):60-4.
Of 384 secondary bariatric operations, 151 reoperative [Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass].
procedures were performed. Twenty-six vertical banded [Article in French]
gastroplasties (17.2%), 2 mini-gastric bypasses (1.3%), 2 non- Chevallier JM, Chakhtoura G, Zinzindohoué F.
divided bypasses (1.3%), 1 distal Roux-en-Y gastric bypass Service de chirurgie digestive, hôpital Européen Georges-
(RYGBP; 0.7%), and 2 sleeve gastrectomies (1.3%) were Pompidou, Paris. jean-marc.chevallier@egp.aphp.fr
converted to RYGBP. Three RYGBP (2%) and four jejunoileal
bypass procedures (2.6%) were reversed secondary to 19446695
malnutrition. One jejunoileal bypass (0.7%) and one 14.
biliopancreatic diversion (0.7%) underwent sleeve gastrectomies. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2009 May-Jun;5(3):383-6. Epub 2009 Jan
Three pre-anastomotic rings were removed due to erosion (2%). 18.
Eleven pouch trimmings (7.3%), 16 redo gastrojejunostomies Laparoscopic conversion of distal mini-gastric bypass to proximal
(10.6%), 5 redo jejunojejunostomies (3.3%), 36 remnant Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for malnutrition: case report and review
gastrectomies (23.8%), and 2 gastrogastric fistula takedowns of the literature.
(1.3%) were performed for pouch enlargements, strictures, and Dang H, Arias E, Szomstein S, Rosenthal R.
gastrogastric fistulas. Thirty-six patients (23.8%) underwent a Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Section of Minimally Invasive
combination of these procedures. The major morbidity (13.2%) and Endoscopic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida,
was related to leaks. Other complications included wound USA.
infection, intra-abdominal abscess formation, and trocar site
hernias. The mortality rate was 2%. 19356992
CONCLUSIONS: 15.
Reoperative bariatric surgery is a complex and growing field in Obes Surg. 2008 Sep;18(9):1126-9. Epub 2008 Jun 25.
bariatric surgery. The indications for surgical reoperation can vary Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (LMGB) in the super-super
depending on the procedure and reason for intervention. obese: outcomes in 16 patients.
Laparoscopy appears to be a feasible approach. Though safe, Peraglie C.
morbidity and mortality are significantly higher than in primary The Centers of Laparoscopic Obesity Surgery-Florida, Heart of
bariatric procedures. Florida Regional Medical Center, 40124 Highway 27, Davenport,
FL, USA. drp@clos.net
20676940 BACKGROUND:
12. The ideal management of the super-super obese patient (SSO) is
Hepatogastroenterology. 2009 Nov-Dec;56(96):1745-9. unclear and controversy exists as to the choice of procedure as
Obesity and the decision tree: predictors of sustained weight loss well as the risk for increased morbidity and mortality. I present
after bariatric surgery. my experience of laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (LMGB) in 16
Lee YC, Lee WJ, Lin YC, Liew PL, Lee CK, Lin SC, Lee TS. SSO patients with early follow-up results.
Department of International Business, Ching-Yun University, METHODS:
Zhongli City, Taiwan. lyc6115@ms61.hinet.net Review of a prospectively maintained database was performed.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: All the patients underwent LMGB by a single surgeon (CP). Data
Bariatric surgery is the only long-lasting effective treatment to collected included demographics, operative time, length of stay,
reduce body weight in morbid obesity. Previous literature in using complications, and weight loss. Follow-up data was obtained at
data mining techniques to predict weight loss in obese patients office visits in addition to periodic telephone interviews and e-
who have undergone bariatric surgery is limited. This study used mails. All office follow-up and review of correspondence from
initial evaluations before bariatric surgery and data mining Primary Care Physicians (PCP) was managed by the operating
techniques to predict weight outcomes in morbidly obese patients surgeon.
seeking surgical treatment. RESULTS:
METHODOLOGY: Sixteen patients were identified as being SSO and comprise the
251 morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic mini-gastric study group. There were 14 women and two men. Average age
28
29. was 40 years (27-61). Average weight and BMI were 166 (150- Obes Surg. 2007 Nov;17(11):1482-6.
193) and 62.4 (60-73), respectively. All procedures were Mini-gastric bypass by mini-laparotomy: a cost-effective
performed laparoscopically by a single surgeon with no alternative in the laparoscopic era.
conversion to open. Average operative time was 78 min (41-147 Noun R, Riachi E, Zeidan S, Abboud B, Chalhoub V, Yazigi A.
min) and hospital stay was 1.2 days. Intraoperative complications Department of Digestive Surgery, Hôtel-Dieu de France Hospital,
included a liver laceration in one patient and an enterotomy in Beirut, Lebanon. rnoun@wise.net.lb
another. Both were managed laparoscopically. No patients BACKGROUND:
required readmission to the hospital, and there were no major Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (MGB) is being increasingly
complications or deaths. Weight loss showed a consistent performed worldwide. Results of MGB by mini-laparotomy
increase over the follow-up period with 2 year results of 72 KG (minilap MGB) are hereby reported.
lost or 65% EWL. METHODS:
CONCLUSION: 126 patients undergoing minilap MGB from October 2004 to
Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (MGB) is a technically simple October 2006, were reviewed at an academic institution.
and safe procedure in SSO patients. LMGB has the advantages of RESULTS:
being a single stage procedure, being easily reversible and Mean age was 35 +/- 11.4 years (range 15-72), preoperative BMI
revisable in a laparoscopic procedure and does not sacrifice was 44 +/- 6.9 kg/m2 (range 35-61.8) and 80 (63.4%) were
portions of the stomach or implant foreign materials. Weight loss women. Co-morbidities were present in 42 (33.3%). Operative
appears favorable in the short term; however, information time was 144 +/- 15.8 minutes (range 120-160) and length of
regarding long-term weight loss, durability, and safety profile in hospital stay was 3.32 +/- 0.62 days (range 2-18). There was no
this population will require a greater number of patients and hospital mortality, and the in-hospital complication rate was 4.7%.
longer follow up. No anastomotic leakage occurred, and the incidence of wound
sepsis was 2.3%. The mean total cost of the procedure was 3408
18575943 +/- 547 USD (range 2967-6876). Five patients (3.9%) developed
16. incisional hernias and 3 (2.3%) marginal ulcers. BMI at 6 months
Obes Surg. 2008 Sep;18(9):1130-3. Epub 2008 Jun 20. was 33.0 +/- 3.1 kg/m2 (range 26.8-43.5, P < 0.001) compared
Primary results of laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass in a French with preoperative value. At 1 year, mean excess weight loss was
obesity-surgery specialized university hospital. 68.4% and comorbidities resolved in 85%.
Chakhtoura G, Zinzindohoué F, Ghanem Y, Ruseykin I, Dutranoy CONCLUSION:
JC, Chevallier JM. Minilap MGB is a simple, safe, effective and low-cost gastric
Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, University Paris 5, Paris, bypass. It represents an attractive cost-effective alternative to
France. laparoscopic MGB.
BACKGROUND:
Since 2002, we have performed 350 laparoscopic Roux-en-Y 18219775
gastric bypasses (LRYGB). We decided to evaluate the
laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (LMGB), an operation reported 18.
as effective, yet simpler than LRYGB. It consisted of a long lesser Obes Surg. 2008 Mar;18(3):294-9. Epub 2008 Jan 12.
curvature tube with a terminolateral gastroenterostomy, 200 cm Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass: experience with tailored bypass
distal to the Treitz ligament. limb according to body weight.
METHODS: Lee WJ, Wang W, Lee YC, Huang MT, Ser KH, Chen JC.
From October 2006 to November 2007, 100 patients (23 men and Department of Surgery, Min-Sheng General Hospital, National
77 women) underwent LMGB. The mean age was 40.9 +/- 11.5 Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.
years (17.5-62.4), the preoperative mean body weight was 131 wjlee_obessurg_tw@yahoo.com.tw
+/- 23.1 kg (82-203) and the mean BMI was 46.9 +/- 7.4 BACKGROUND:
kg/m(2) (32.8-72.4). Twenty-four patients had prior restrictive Gastric bypass surgery is an effective and long-lasting treatment
procedure: 20 LAGB of which nine were already removed and four of morbidly obese patients. However, the bypass limb may need
VBG (two laparoscopic and two by open surgery). In preoperative to be tailored in morbidly obese patients with a wide range of
gastric endoscopy Helicobacter pylorii was present in 26 patients obesity. The aim of the present study was to report clinical result
and eradicated. of tailored bypass limb in a group of patients receiving
RESULTS: laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass surgery.
All procedures were completed laparoscopically by six different METHODS:
surgeons. Mean operative time was 129 +/- 37 min. There was From Jan 2002 to Dec 2006, laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass was
no death. Seven patients (7%) presented major early performed in 644 patients [469 women, 175 men: mean age 30.5
complications: three reoperations for incarcerated herniation of +/- 8.1 years; mean body mass index (BMI) 43.1 +/- 6.0] in our
small bowel in the trocar wound, one peritonitis due to a department. The gastric bypass limb was tailored according to the
traumatic injury of the biliary limb, one perianastomotic abscess, preoperative BMI. The clinical data and outcomes were analyzed.
one intraabdominal bleeding requiring splenectomy, and one All the clinical data were prospectively collected and stored.
endoscopic haemostasis for anastomotic bleeding. One patient RESULTS:
presented anastomotic stenosis that required endoscopic Two hundred eighty-six patients belonged to lower BMI (BMI <
dilatation 2 months postoperatively. Mean BMI at 3 months was 40; mean 36.0), 286 patients moderate BMI (BMI 40-50; mean
38.7 kg/m(2) (31.2-60.9) and at 6 months 35.1 (23.6-53.0). Nine 43.2), and 72 patients higher BMI (BMI > 50; mean 55.4). All
patients complained of diarrhea that resolved 3 months procedures were completed laparoscopically. Mean operative time
postoperatively and, significantly, only two patients complained of was 130 min, and mean hospital stay was 5.0 days. Twenty-three
biliary reflux. minor early complications (4.3%) and 13 major complications
CONCLUSION: (2.0%) were encountered, with one death occurred (0.016%).
Pending long-term evaluation, LMBG seems a good alternative to There was no significant difference in operation time and
LRYGB, giving the same results with a more simple and complication rate between the groups. The mean bypass limb was
reproductible technique. 150 cm for the lower BMI group, 250 cm for moderate BMI group,
and 350 cm for the higher BMI group. The mean BMI reduction 2
18566866 years after surgery was 10.7, 15.5, and 23.3 for the lower,
17. moderate, and higher BMI group. The weight loss curves and
29