Duodenal Switch and Distal Gastric Bypass (ERNY)
December 04, 2009 7:24 pm
On 10/28/2009 I had a variation of the RNY gastric bypass (Distal Gastric Bypass) known as the Fobi pouch. I lost over 270 pounds, but I had debilitating complications of dumping syndrome, reactive hypoglycemia, acid reflux and vomiting.
My entire day was pretty much controlled by dumping syndrome. Due to the hypoglycemic episodes that resulted from dumping syndrome, I was constantly in a binge cycle, because I constantly needed to stabilize my blood sugar. I would eat breakfast and need to lay down. Once I started having hypoglycemia, I would get up and splurge on carbohydrates.
Note that my dumping syndrome was not caused by poor food choices. I only splurged off carbohydrates in a desperate attempt to quickly get my glucose levels up. This did work, but it lead me to dumping syndrome again. I then had another episode of hypoglycemia, which lead to more binging which resulted in more dumping, more binging and weight gain. Here is a diagram of the cycle I was constantly in:
Eat –> dump –>hypoglycemia –> binge –>redump –> more hypoglycemia –> binge –> dump
This was a constant cycle I was in, and as you can see here, my entire life became controlled by dumping syndrome, and it eventually caused me to become disabled. I am a full time student and was not able to go to school in this state. I would eat lunch and then go to class only to start dumping ten minutes into lecture, and I ended up dropping my classes for the semester.
I went to my bypass surgeon and told him of the problems I was having, and he told me that I was anorexic. I was also told that it was “…all in my head.”
After doing much research, I consulted with Dr. Keshishian. I handed him a list with the problems I was having and asked if revision to the duodenal switch would resolve these problems. Dr. Keshishian drew out a diagram of the anatomy of my surgery and showed me exactly why I was having these complications. I remember him saying, “There is a physiological explanation for why you are having these problems. It is not in your head. Yes, revision will resolve these complications.”
I had my revision on 4/11/2011, and all the complications I had with my bypass have been resolved, and I have had no complications with my duodenal switch. Now that my pylorus is working again, I can eat without becoming ill. I have now gone back to school, work, and have resumed back to a normal life.
YG
Obesityhelp.com revision Forum information
November 08, 2009 9:00 am
I am not sure what has happened over the past two weeks or so, but I have received a number of inquiries from patients who have had questions about the revision of RNY or Lap Band® for weight regain, inadequate weight loss, or other complications. I finally had to ask one of the patients where he got his information and heard about our practice. His source of information was the obesityhelp.com website.
I have spent some time looking over and responding to several postings on the forum sites. I have referred to a number of publications in some of my postings on obsityhelp.com.
Nishie et.al. (Obesity Surgery, 17, 2007 1183-1188) reported:
“Pouch size area, measured by routine UGI on the first postoperative day does not influence short term postoperative weight loss. “
Cottam et.al. (Obesity Surgery 2009, 19:13-17) concluded:
“The level of restriction or the presence of stenosis achieved by different stapler sizes does not have a significant role in weight loss.”
O’Connor et.al. (Surgery for Obesity and Related Dis. 4(2008) 399-403) summarizes:
“With construction of divided, vertical, lesser curvature based small-volume (less than or equal to 20 cm gastric pouches, the actual size of the gastric pouch did not correlate with the %EWL at 1 year laparoscopic GB.”
I am a firm believer that the best patient is the most knowledgeable patient. It is always safer to spend as much time as needed to ask questions and investigate all options. If I can provide any information, please contact us at [email protected]
Length of Small Bowel
October 26, 2009 2:49 am
It appears that there are series of questions and concerns that are not completely resolved, and they resurface every so frequently. Length of the small bowel for the Common Channel and the Alimentary limb in the Duodenal Switch operation is one of those topics.
The Questions that I am asked:
- How long is my common Channel?
- Another patient had the same length, but they are loosing more (or less) as the case may be.
- I was told by another surgeon that they would give me a certain length of common channel, what do you think?
The common problem is that there is no accurate and practical way to measure the length of the bowel. There is also two schools of though, with very little objective research to support one or the other. There is no published data that I could find that answers this question head on. There are number of other
articles, and presentations that touch on this topic.
The best reference that I think is worth looking over is an editorial by Dr. Hess. The link is provided below.
I would like to discuss this in an organized way.
The artistic work is done by yours truly!
First a Brief over view of our GI track:
Our GI track starts at the mouth and ends in the rectum (figure 1). It is a long tube that has a very few side branches. These include the opening of the salivary glands in the mouth, the opening of the biliary (from the liver) and the pancreatic (from the pancreas) plumbing to in the first part of the small bowel
(duodenum) and the Appendix (at the junction of the small bowel and the large bowel).
Related article is available on our site.
The small bowel is the part that causes all this confusion. The small bowel is a long pliable, elastic tube that can be stretched (figure 2).
Depending on how much force is applied to it, it can be of different lengths. A similar analogy is the phone cord to head set of a conventional phone. The spiral cord placed on a table will coil up to a certain length. If one then pulls on two ends it will measure longer. And if more pull is exerted, then it will easure even longer. This demonstrates that the absolute measured length of the small bowel, is directly related to the force with which it is pulled. What this means is that if two individuals measure the length of the headset cord, or the bowel, they will get two different lengths, both correct but not the same. The length is directly proportional to the pull force applied to both ends.
Furthermore; the length of the small bowel is determinant of the absorptive capacity (amongst other factors). The longer the small bowel the more absorption, and the shorter the small bowel, the less absorption. There is a general-trauma surgical problem knows as short gut syndrome, where the length of the bowel is so short that it cannot support maintenance of the electrolytes and minerals, in additions to the required absorption of the calories. Short gut syndrome is a very difficult surgical problem to solve.
Getting back to our discussion however, we can now appreciate how two
surgeons can measure the same amount of small bowel (the same absorptive capacity) but end of with different lengths of small bowel. Same amount of bowel, same absorptive capacity, different lengths. This is why comparing lengths of small bowel is probably not the most accurate way to. Two patients, both with 75 cm common channels may have very different absorptive capacity, unless the bowel was measured by the same surgeon, and both patients had the same amount of total bowel length. We should next consider a possible alternative. Consider the drawing on (figure 3) and (figure 4).
The distance between C and B is 25% (quarter) of the total length between A and B. This represents a segment of bowel that was measured and marked Now lets take the same amount of bowel and apply a little more pull force to the ends while measuring it. We will have a total length of 80 cm, between A and B (figure 5). The distance between A and C will be 60 cm and the distance between C and B will be 40 cm (figure 6). The absolute lengths then are double of the first case. Same amount of bowel, same absorptive capacity yet double the length. Does this mean that the second patient with distance between C and B at 20 cm will absorb twice as much as the first patient? The answer is no, since it was the same amount of bowel that was measured with different technique.
Lets now however look at this from another perspective. In both cases the distance between C and B was only 25% of the total length.
| Distances | Figures 3 & 4 | Figures 5 & 6 |
| Total length A-B | 40 cm | 80 cm |
| A-C | 30 cm | 60 cm |
| % of total | 25% | 25% |
The table above shows why lengths of bowel discussed in-terms of percentage of total may be a more standardized than the absolute numbers.
In this example both patient will have same absorptive capacity (25%) yet will have much longer absolute lengths. In our practice, we measure the total length and the common channel and the alimentary lengths are based on the patient BMI, comorbidities, age, sex, and activity level.
Please remember that this is only my opinion, different surgeons do it differently.
Bowel Obstruction From “scar” Tissue
October 12, 2009 7:52 pm
One of the potential complications of any abdominal surgery is bowel obstruction. This can occur with open or laparoscopic operation. It can also occur within days or years of the operation. The over all incidence of bowel obstruction is relatively low.
The text book diagnostic criteria for bowel obstruction is the presence of a set of physical findings additional to the diagnostic supporting evidence. A typical patient may present with cramping abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, absence of any flatus, and not bowel movements. The pain may be dull and could be any where on the abdomen. The White count may be elevated, and a plain abdominal Xray may show “airfluid” levels. All of these finding point to a patient that has bowel obstruction. Depending on the age and the history of the patient, the a common cause may he adhesions (scar tissue) that has cause a blockage of the bowel.
Unfortunately, these physical and radiological findings may not all be present in patients that have had the Duodenal Switch or the Gastric Bypass operation. The patients may complain of nausea but no vomiting. They may still pass gas and have bowel movements, but have cramping abdominal pain. The plain abdominal xray may not show air-fluid levels, yet have complete obstruction. The presence or lack of these findings can be explained.
In both the DS and the RNY operations, there are two parallel limbs (figure 1). One of them is connected to the esophagus, thus it can have air in it. The other limb is not connected to the outside on the proximal end (green limb in figure one only drain the bilio-pancreatic secretions and is not connected on the proximal end to the esophagus). This major anatomical difference explains why there may be air fluid level in a bowel obstruction patient with no DS or RNY, and no such finding in a DS or RNY patient.
The most important diagnostic tool is a very high degree of clinical suspicion. The absence of vomiting, or air fluid levels on an abdominal xray, or the presence of flatus and bowel movements does NOT rule out a complete bowel obstruction. The more reliable way to diagnose a bowel obstruction after DS or RNY is by CT scan or and MRI (figure 2, 3).
A finding of fluid field loops of bowel is highly specific for bowel obstruction and warrants a surgical intervention since it can not be corrected by a naso-gastric tube (tube inserted thru the nose into the stomach to decompress the stomach and the proximal small bowel). This is because as mentioned earlier, there is a parallel segment of bowel that is not in continuum with the esophagus. In pre DS or RNY anatomy, the entire GI track is a long tube (figure 4).
An example of a bowel obstruction caused by scar tissue is noted in the following pictures.
Does Size Matter
September 28, 2009 12:14 pm
The scientific basis for weight loss surgery, for the majority of the part relies on the premise that overeating and lack of exercise are the principal mechanisms contributing to the increase in the incidence of obesity over that last decade. Much has been said about our unhealthy life style that involves sedentary activity and immobility. Fast foods, high fat content meals, calorie dense food, are some of the examples of possible contributing factors to this health crisis.
The contrary position would be that there are other factors that contribute to obesity. These may include environmental factors, food preservatives, genetics, and exposures to toxins.
If one assumes that the over eating is the core problem, then you can also assume that the most successful operation will have the smallest stomach, since it will reduce the ability to over eat most drastically. This is where the scientific evidence does not support the theory and we all have to reassess the principal that the treatments are directed toward.
Recently there have been a number of studies that have been published in scientific journals that suggest size of the stomach or the pouch does not matter. So if obesity is the result of over eating then the operation that provides the smallest stomach must work the best. This argument should be true for the pouch size after gastric bypass, and the opening of the gastro-jejunostomy (connection between the stomach pouch and the small bowel connected to it after the gastric bypass, RNY operation). The same theory applies to the sleeve gastrectomy of the duodenal switch operation.
This argument that over eating and lack of exercise is the major contributing factor seems to be loosing ground.
The studies below are outline to demonstrate the disparity between the theory and the lack of scientific support for it.
1- Sanchez-Pernaute et.al. (Obesity Surgery, 17, 2007) reported that “After DS, gastric tube volume is not directly related to weight changes.” He proposed that there are other factors that may contribute to the weight loss than the size of the gastric tube.
This graph taken from the referenced study above shows that the size of the stomach sleeve does not correlate with the %EBWL in DS patients. The smaller stomach sleeve does not result in the more weight loss.
2- O’Connor et.al. (SOARD 4(2008)399-403) reported that “With construction of divided, vertical, lesser curve-based small-volume (=<20cm3) gastric pouches, the actual size of the gastric pouch did not correlate wit the %EBWL at 1 year after Laparoscopic, GB [gastric bypass]”.
3- Nishie et.al. (Obesity surgery, 17, 2007) concluded that “pouch size area, measured by routine UGI [upper GI series] on the first post operative day, does no influence short-term postoperative weight loss”.
This a sample of a number of graph that Nishie published in her study. The similar graphs were for 3, 12, and 24 months. They all had a flat line distributions. What they are showed was regardless of the time lapsed from surgery, the %EBWL was independent of the size of the pouch measured immediately post operatively.
4- Cottam et.al. (Obesity Surgery, 2009, 19:13-17) reported “The level of restriction or the presence of stenosis achieved by different circular stapler sizes does not have a significant role in weight loss”.
This study was focused on the size of the opening that is made between the stomach pouch and the small bowel in the gastric bypass (RNY) operation. The weight loss did not differ in the two groups of the patients. One group had a 21mm stapler and the other one 25mm stapler used. The weight loss, as measured by %EBWL was nearly identical in both cases.
In summary, the size does not seem to matter. The size of the stomach pouch, when it gets to a certain size in not important. The smaller stomach pouch or the narrower connection of the stomach and the small bowel will not make a patient loose more weight. Doesn’t this prove, to at least some degree, that there is much more to obesity than the simple notion of eating small portion and exercising?
Get informed
September 26, 2009 6:56 pm
Weight loss information
September 22, 2009 4:22 am
What is Strontium – What are BiphosphonatesExclusive Member Content
September 21, 2009 9:07 pm
Sedentary Lives Can Be Deadly
August 10, 2009 9:42 pm
ScienceDaily— As many as 50 million Americans are living sedentary lives, putting them at increased risk of health problems and even early death, a leading expert in exercise science told the American psychological Association.
Speaking at APA’s 117th Annual Convention, Steven Blair, PED, called Americans’ physical inactivity “the biggest public health problem of the 21st century.”
Blair is a professor of exercise science and epidemiology at the University of South Carolina’s Arnold School of Public Health. He is one of the world’s premier experts on exercise and its health benefits and was the senior scientific editor of the 1996 U.S. Surgeon General’s Report on Physical Activity and Health.
Research has shown approximately 25 percent to 35 percent of American adults are inactive, Blair said, meaning that they have sedentary jobs, no regular physical activity program and are generally inactive around the house or yard. “This amounts to 40 million to 50 million people exposed to the hazard
of inactivity,” Blair said in an interview. “Given that these individuals are doubling their risk of developing numerous health conditions compared with those who are even moderately active and fit, we’re looking at a major public health problem.”
Blair’s extensive research comes primarily from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study, in which he found that fitness level was a significant predictor of mortality. The ongoing study began in 1970 and includes more than 80,000 patients.
The researchers periodically measured the participants’ body composition and body mass index, and each patient underwent a stress test. Researchers also looked at numerous other factors including the participants’ medical histories.
One follow-up study of 40,842 longitudinal study participants showed poor fitness level accounted for about 16 percent of all deaths in both men and women.
The percentage was calculated by estimating the number of deaths that would have been avoided if people had spent 30 minutes a day walking.
This percentage was significantly higher than when other risk factors were considered, including obesity, smoking, high cholesterol and diabetes. The
Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study also found that moderately fit men lived six years longer than unfit men.
More examination of 14,811 female patients in the ACLS showed that women who were very fit were 55 percent less likely to die from breast cancer than women who were not in good shape. This was after the researchers had controlled for BMI, smoking, family history of breast cancer and other possible
risk factors.
Blair also highlighted the benefits of exercise on the mind, referring to recent emerging evidence that activity delays the mind’s decline and is good for brain
health overall. Blair said he thinks psychologists can be integral in helping patients understand the health hazards of being inactive and encouraging people to look for more ways to get moving. “Over the past few decades, we have largely engineered the need for physical activity out of the daily lives of most people in industrialized societies,” said Blair.
The message should be simple, he said: Doing something is better than doing nothing, and doing more is better than doing less, at least up to a point. “We need numerous changes to promote more physical activity for all, including public policies, changes in the health care system, promoting activity in educational settings and worksites, and social and physical environmental changes. We need more communities where people feel comfortable walking. I believe psychologists can help develop better lifestyle change interventions
to help people be more active via the Internet and other technological methods.”
My Opinion on Health Care Policy
August 03, 2009 2:47 am
It is nearly impossible to watch television, listen to the radio, read newspaper or surt the net, without having to hear or read about all the expert opinions of what the health care reform is or is not going to do for (to) us.
This debate includes on one end a complete melt down of the delivery system, if the healthcare reform gets approved, and the other end is healthcare for everyone with all the choices with no additional cost! There is also a minority that things everything is great and we should just leave it as is. I am assuming they include the healthcare insurance, pharmaceutical employees, their families and all the lobbyists that they have bought.
I do try to keep in touch with what is going on, and keep my opinion to myself, however I decided to write this piece for the news letter after I received an email (unsolicited) from a hospital co-worker, with a cartoon that summarized what this entire debate is about. Misinformation! Since I am not sure if the image is copyrighted or not I am not going to post it here.
This cartoon depicted a discussion between member of the current administration and public talking about certain aspects of the health care reform. Those of you that know me are aware of my sense of humor, and with that said, I think it is appropriate that the facts are presented with an objective view, when it comes to preservation of human life.
I believe that as a healthcare provider in a community hospital in private practice gives me a unique opportunity to have an informed opinion of the health of our healthcare system. We are in cardiac arrest! Regardless of you being democrat or republican, or any shade of blue, red or any other color, I ask that you all read this as another opinion. I am sure some will agree and some will disagree with parts or all of it. The purpose of this newsletter is not to changes anyones opinion, but rather make sure that the facts are presented accurately from a healthcare providers point of view.
In no particular order I will touch upon some of the issues surrounding this discussion.
1-Rationing of the healthcare. Not a good thing in any case. The reality is that the health care is already rationed. The access to health care is rationed by all insurance companies except Medicare. If a patient is seen in our office, we can not perform any surgery, unless we get an authorization from an insurance company.
If you did not know, I talk to physicians from insurance companies many times a week for this purpose. They, a physician that you have never seen, have not been examined by will decide if the care that I, your treating physician, is recommending is appropriate. It does not sound that bad, until you realize that the insurance physician is for example not even a Bariatric surgeon dictating what type of surgery should and should not be performed. That would be like me taking and advise from a plumber how to wire an electric plug !
2-Deteriorating level of healthcare provided. The average wait in an emergency room has gone up significantly. The number of emergency rooms has gone down also. Both of these mean that in that critical time frame that some of us will need the emergency room care, expert help will be too far (since other ones that were closer closed due to financial strains in 1990’s) and when we get there, we will have to wait because the emergency room will be packed with patients who are there for runny nose, earaches and other problems that should have been addressed by their primary care, had they had one or could pay for it.
3-Tax credit, employee mandate, Insurance subsidy… In one form or another, all this means is who is going to pay for my healthcare. There is no free lunch. Is there any one out there that expects to get healthcare for free anywhere in the world? We pay it in the US in the form of higher operating cost when running a small business, insurance premiums, taxation etc. Each one of us, is paying for our own healthcare directly or indirectly. If you worked for the now bankrupt GM, you may have had healthcare paid for by the company, who passed on that cost thru each car, that we all bought. In the Western Europe, and Canada, the bulk of the funding is collected from taxes and there may not be a mandate for a small business to pay for health insurance. End of the day we are all paying for it one way or another. It is a mute point to play word games with the payment plan. Call it whatever you want, but someone has to pay for it. Can we become more efficient yes we can if we streamline information exchange channels, educate general population, and look at the entire health from a preventive perspective. Our current health care for the most part is a reactive model. On a personal note, I have family members who lives in Europe. They call the national healthcare phone number with concerns. Their needs are meet, surgeries performed, medication provided without any concerns for deductible, copay, authorizations etc. They have an easier access to all level of care than an average family in US. As I indicated above, In my opinion, the healthcare in US is on life support. I am in support of the government option, and regulation of the healthcare insurance industry, with coverage for all especially children. Health care decisions should not be made by an insurance company but the doctor and the patient. I am not in support of government intrusion in our daily life however to set the facts strait the only health insurance model that has the least amount of “medical bureaucracy” is the Medicare model.
If the healthcare reform passes one of two things is going to happen. It will either provide for health care, competitive market, at no additional cost or a complete melt down of the entire system providing an opportunity to build a new functional environment.












