ReviewChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023
[Current evidence on loop length in intestinal bypass procedures].
Review in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntestinal bypass procedures are well recognized for their long-term weight reduction and control of metabolic comorbidities. The selection of the length of the small bowel loop has a significant influence on the positive and also negative effects of the chosen procedure but national and international standardization are missing.
objectiveThe aim of this article is to give an overview of the current evidence on the various intestinal bypass procedures and the influence of the chosen small bowel loop length on the desired and adverse postoperative outcomes. The IFSO 2019 consensus recommendations on the standardization of bariatric surgery and metabolic procedures form the basis of these considerations. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe current literature was searched for comparative studies addressing the question of different small bowel loop lengths in a Roux-en‑Y gastric bypass, one anastomosis gastric bypass, single anastomosis duodenoileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy and biliopancreatic diversion (with duodenal switch).
resultsDue to the heterogeneity of currently available studies and interindividual differences in total small bowel lengths in humans, it is difficult to give definitive recommendations for the choice of small bowel loop lengths. The longer the biliopancreatic loop (BPL) or the shorter the common channel (CC), the higher is the risk of (severe) malnutrition. To prevent malnutrition, the BPL should not be longer than 200 cm and the CC should have a length of at least 200 cm.
conclusionThe intestinal bypass procedures recommended in the German S3 guidelines are safe and show good long-term outcomes. As part of the postbariatric follow-up, the nutritional status of patients following an intestinal bypass has to be followed-up on the long term in order to avoid malnutrition preferably prior to a clinical manifestation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36894649What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.