Short-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy with Duodenojejunal Bypass for Morbid Obesity (2024)

  • Journal List
  • J Metab Bariatr Surg
  • v.9(2); 2020 Dec
  • PMC9847660

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice

Short-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy with Duodenojejunal Bypass for Morbid Obesity (1)

Link to Publisher's site

J Metab Bariatr Surg. 2020 Dec; 9(2): 61–67.

Published online 2020 Dec 31. doi:10.17476/jmbs.2020.9.2.61

PMCID: PMC9847660

PMID: 36688118

Young Gil Jo,1 Jeong Hyun Yuem,1 Jong Min Kim,Short-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy with Duodenojejunal Bypass for Morbid Obesity (2)2 and Sung Il ChoiShort-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy with Duodenojejunal Bypass for Morbid Obesity (3)1

Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with duodenojejunal bypass (SDJB) surgery in Korean patients.

Materials and Methods

This was a retrospective study analyzing SDJB surgery with a 200-cm biliopancreatic limb; the surgery was performed between January 2019 and August 2020 in 56 Koreans with morbid obesity. All demographic, clinical, operative, and follow-up data were documented and analyzed for weight loss and diabetes remission efficacy. Safety and feasibility were analyzed in terms of perioperative and postoperative complications. A decrease in the HbA1c value and discontinuation or reduction of anti-diabetics were considered as indicators of improvement in diabetes.

Results

he median operation time was 180.0 min (105-210 min), and the median postoperative hospital stay was 5.0 days (3-35 days). Postoperative complications occurred in two patients who were managed by conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery. Meaningful weight loss was 3.5%, 27.7%, and 54.9% at the 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month follow-ups, respectively. Of the 56 patients, 46 had type 2 diabetes. Among those patients, at the 1-month follow-up, 4/31 patients (12%), at the 3-month follow-up, 22/41 patients (53.6%), and at the 6-month follow-up, 31/42 patients (73.8%) were found to show improvement. Of the patients who received anti-diabetics or insulin therapy, only three (9%) patients continued to receive reduced treatment of diabetes, and the other thirty (91%) discontinued the anti-diabetics.

Conclusion

SDJB surgery with a 200-cm biliopancreatic limb was a safe and effective procedure to treat morbid obesity and diabetes.

Keywords: Bariatric surgery, Metabolic surgery, Obesity, Diabetes, Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with duodenojejunal bypass

INTRODUCTION

Obesity, one of the most common lifestyle diseases, has grown into a pandemic in the present world [1]. It is one of the most common causes of type 2 diabetes. The attempts to manage obesity using basic methods such as diet and exercise are unsuccessful [2]. However, surgery is an effective method for managing both, obesity and associated comorbidities. There are several bariatric surgeries available; however, no single procedure is suitable to address all patients with obesity [3].

Since westernized eating habits have become widespread in Korea, patterns of westernized diseases are also increasing, and obesity is a problem that has gradually emerged over time, along with metabolic syndrome. Consequently, the Korean National Insurance System has covered those who have morbid obesity with a body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2 with comorbidities or >35 kg/m2 since 2019.

Most common laparoscopic surgical options include sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with duodenojejunal bypass (SDJB). The gold standard surgery, RYGB, has several short-term and long-term complications such as loss of access to the gastric remnant, dumping syndrome, marginal ulcers, internal hernias, and vitamin deficiencies [4]. The postoperative complication rates of the standard bariatric surgeries RYGB and SG are approximately 3.0% and 2.1%, respectively. The mortality rate was found to be 0–1.5% in patients with obesity, while it was higher in patients with obesity and comorbidities [5]. Long-term complications are related to nutritional deficiencies requiring long-term vitamin and mineral supplementation [2]. ‘Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with duodenojejunal bypass (SDJB)’ surgery is a combination of SG and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). This surgery aimed at addressing the limitations of standard bariatric surgeries to some extent. It is similar to laparoscopic single anastomosis duodenoileal bypass with a sleeve (SADI-S), but with a more proximal anastomosis. In SDJB surgery, the jejunum 200 cm distal to the duodenojejunal flexure, instead of the ileum, is anastomosed to the divided first part of the duodenum in a loop fashion. Pyloric preservation in SDJB surgeries reduces the risk of marginal ulcers, prevents bile reflux, and dumping syndrome [4]. The reduction of marginal ulcer risk from 3% in RYGB to 0.3% in SDJB and the absence of dumping syndrome in the latter is attributed to pylorus preservation [6]. The reduced number of anastomoses and mesenteric defects in SDJB surgery reduces the incidence of anastomotic leaks and internal hernias [4]. The literature available on SDJB surgeries is extremely limited, and no literature is available from Korea on these surgeries. In this context, this study was conducted to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SDJB surgery with a 200 cm biliopancreatic limb in Korean patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted between January 2019 and August 2020, and included 56 Koreans with obesity. Patients who underwent SDJB surgery with a 200-cm biliopancreatic limb for obesity were included in the study. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Borad of Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong (IRB File No. KHNMC 2020-10-038).

All patients were checked for the presence of metabolic syndromes such as diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension, and the presence of diseases that were undiagnosed. Exercise therapy was performed in conjunction with rehabilitation medicine to manage obesity continuously, and in conjunction with psychiatry, diagnoses related to eating disorders and exercise therapy were made possible.

We consider a lot of things related to patient condition. In this article, we commonly performed sleeve DJB in patient who suffer from diabetics with gastric cancer risk (family history of gastric cancer, mucosal dysplasia and H. pylori infection).

In this study, a total of Six ports with three-dimensional (3D) and two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic equipment were used. Electrocautery and energy device such as Thunderbeat type S (Olympus, Japan), harmonic scalpel (Ethicon, USA) were used for dissection and powered linear stapler such as Ethilon surgical stapler (Ethicon, USA), SIGNIA™ stapling system (Medtronic, USA) in order to resection and anastomosis during the surgery. Liver was retracted using flexible retractor (gold finger) via epigastric trocar. The greater curvature of the stomach was resected 4 cm proximal to the pylorus to the gastroesophageal junction. The fundus was completely mobilized. A 36-Fr calibration tube was advanced transorally along the lesser curvature, and the stomach was divided using a linear stapler. The staple line was imbricated while keeping the calibration tube in place. Then, the posterior wall of the duodenum was dissected and divided using a linear stapler 1-2 cm distal to the pylorus. The omentum was divided to avoid tension at the anastomosis during an antecolic reconstruction. The biliopancreatic limb length was 200 cm, and a duodenojejunal side-to-side anastomosis was created by single layers of hand sewing. The Peterson space was closed with non-absorbable sutures.

Patients were ambulated on the first postoperative day. Leak check was done by a contrast X-ray of the stomach, and complete blood test a week and a month after surgery. Patients were analyzed based on their weight, BMI, percentage total weight loss (%TWL), percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) with a BMI reference point of 25 kg/m2, and investigations including HbA1c and DM medications at the 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month follow-ups. Meaningful weight loss was defined as %TWL ≥25% [7].

RESULTS

The mean operation time was 180.4 min (105–210 min), and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 5.6 days (3–35 days), and patient data of their age, height, weight, BMI, sex is depicted (Table 1). Postoperative complications occurred in two patients. The clinical manifestation of one patient was recurrent vomiting. Laparoscopic exploration was performed because there was no significant improvement with conservative management, and severe adhesion and stricture at the site of anastomosis were found. Resectional RY bypass conversion was performed. The patient was discharged without any discomfort after surgery, including oral intake after the second surgery. The other postoperative complication was anastomotic leakage. The patient underwent RY bypass conversion and was discharged with no further complications. The 6-month mortality rate was 0%, and no malnutrition was observed. There were no major intraoperative or postoperative bleeding complications.

Table 1

Patient data

ParameterMean (min-max)
Age (years)44.8 (21-61)
Weight (kg)99.3 (68-157.9)
Height (cm)165.3 (150-181)
BMI (kg/m2)36.2 (27.8-53.1)
Operation time (min)150 (105-210)
Postoperative hospital stay (days)5 (3-35)
Sex (Male no. (%):female no. (%))22 (39.2):34 (60.8)
DM (DM no. (%):non-DM no. (%))46 (82.1):10 (17.9)

Open in a separate window

None of the patients had gastroesophageal reflux disease before surgery. No patient developed clinical manifestations suggestive of dumping syndrome or internal hernias.

The mean weight and BMI at different time intervals are depicted in Fig. 1A, B, %TWL and %EWL with a BMI reference point of 25 kg/m2, calculated at the 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month follow-ups, are depicted in Fig. 1C-D and Table 2. When the value of meaningful weight loss was set to more than 25% of TWL, the proportion of patients with meaningful weight loss over time was investigated, and the pattern of an increase was confirmed. Its ratio was 3.5%, 27.7%, and 54.9% at the 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month follow-ups, respectively.

Open in a separate window

Fig. 1

(A) Weight change. (B) BMI change. (C) %TWL change. (D) %EWL change.

Table 2

Weight parameters

ParameterTimeNumberMean
Weight (kg)Preoperative5699.5 (68.0–157.9)
1 month5685.6 (58.7–140)
3 months5478.0 (69.0–120.0)
6 months5171.7 (49.7–109.4)
Body mass index (kg/m2)Preoperative5636.0 (27.8–53.1)
1 month5630.9 (22.5–46.9)
3 months5428.3 (19.8–42.1)
6 months5126.1 (19.5–36.8)
Total weight loss (%TWL)1 month5613.7 (5.8–26.2)
3 months5422.1 (11.1–35.4)
6 months5127.5 (12.3–48.5)
Excess weight loss (%EWL)1 month5641.9 (15.0–107.6)
3 months5464.5 (33.2–137.9)
6 months5178.6 (46.1–143.3)
%TWL ≥25%1 month563.5% (2/56)
3 months5427.7% (15/54)
6 months5154.9% (28/51)

Of the 56 patients, 46 had type 2 diabetes. An HbA1c cut-off value <6 was considered to be an improvement in diabetes. At the 1-month follow-up, only 4/31 patients (12%), at the 3-month follow-up, 22/41 patients (53.6%), and at the 6-month follow-up, 31/42 patients (73.8%), were found to show improvement (Fig. 2, Table 3).

Open in a separate window

Fig. 2

HbA1C change.

Table 3

HbA1c at the follow-up

ParameterTimeNMean or Remission (%)
HbA1cPreoperative498.9 (5.4–30.0)
1 month316.5 (5.5–27.8)
3 months415.8 (4.3–24.3)
6 months425.9 (4.5–6.6)
Response with HbA1c cut-off <61 month412.0% (4/31)
3 months2253.7% (22/41)
6 months3173.8% (31/42)

Open in a separate window

The improvement of diabetes was also investigated in terms of maintenance, reduction, and discontinuation of insulin injection and administration of anti-diabetics. After excluding nine patients without diabetes, among forty-seven patients with diabetes, the remaining thirty-three patients were surveyed, excluding seven patients with insufficient information on the treatment of diabetes and seven without the treatment of diabetes. Of the patients who received anti-diabetics or insulin therapy, only three (9%) continued to receive reduced regimen treatment and the other thirty (91%) discontinued the anti-diabetics (Table 4).

Table 4

Medication for diabetes mellitus

Anti-diabetics after 6 monthsN (33)%
Non-responder00
Switch medication (reduction)39
Discontinuation3091

Open in a separate window

DISCUSSION

Bariatric surgery is a highly effective method to treat morbid obesity and diabetes. SG is simple and easy to perform; however, weight regain and recurrence of comorbid conditions are high in the long run [8]. RYGB surgery is the gold standard to treat morbid obesity [9]. However, it has limitations such as a prolonged learning curve, endoscopic inaccessibility to monitor the remnant stomach (at risk gastric remnant), increased risk of calcium and iron deficiencies despite oral supplements due to the exclusion of the proximal bowel, increased risk of dumping syndrome due to the exclusion of the pylorus and internal hernias [10,11,12,13]. OAGB has become very popular in recent times because of its technical simplicity and increased effectiveness. It addresses the problem of internal hernia associated with RYGB; however, other challenges mentioned above continue to persist [14]. BPD-DS is the most effective operation, both in terms of weight loss and diabetes remission, since hormonal changes are maximum as food empties directly into the distal ileum. However, malabsorption is increased because most of the bowel is bypassed [15]. Huang et al. [16] proposed a loop duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (LDJBSG) to address the limitations associated with standard surgeries. Various loop duodenal switch surgeries have been described in the literature with different biliopancreatic limb and common channel lengths [17]. SDJB surgery is a combination of SG and OAGB with a fixed biliopancreatic limb length to address the malabsorption associated with BPD-DS. In SDJB surgery, the right gastric artery (RGA) is divided at its origin, and the lesser omentum is teased anterior to the caudate lobe before transecting the duodenal bulb, which helps in the complete mobilization of the pyloric antrum and duodenal bulb. As a result, the gastric sleeve and divided duodenal bulb are supplied only by the left gastric pedicle and anchored by the esophagus and lesser omental vascular arcade. This allows free movement of the pyloric antrum and duodenal bulb, facilitating tension-free anastomosis with the jejunum. The resultant gap behind the loop duodenojejunal anastomosis is enormous, which probably obviates the possibility of intestinal obstruction or strangulation even if small intestinal loops enter the gap behind the anastomosis. In SDJB surgery, the loop duodenojejunal anastomosis is an end-to-side anastomosis. Dallegrave Marchesini [18] proposed the division of the RGA while performing loop duodenal switch surgeries.

The anastomosis of the jejunum to the divided duodenal bulb in a Roux-en-Y fashion was described by Seki et al. (SDJB) [19]. Loop anastomosis is simpler, with a reduced number of anastomoses and mesenteric gaps. Loop rather than Roux-en-Y anastomosis, antecolic rather than retrocolic anastomosis, and division of the RGA with a free-lying duodenal bulb may translate into a reduced risk of internal hernias as the number of mesenteric gaps is reduced. Endoscopic surveillance of the gastric sleeve is possible after SDJB surgery. This means that there is no ‘at risk’ gastric remnant. The pylorus was preserved in our surgery, which may reduce dumping syndrome to some extent; however, it cannot be entirely avoided [4].

This study showed that patients could achieve significant weight loss after SDJB surgery. At the 6-month follow-up, 54.90% of the patients maintained %TWL ≥25%. Meaningful weight loss was not high enough; however, this was due to the short follow-up period, and it was expected that the meaningful weight loss would increase further in the long-term follow-up. Maciejewski et al. [20] showed that weight regain after RYGB was 3.4% at the 10-year follow-up. Nor Hanipah et al. [21] showed a significant drop in the BMI from 30.2 (±5.1) kg/m2 to 22.9 (±5.6) kg/m2 at the 2-year follow-up in 163 patients who underwent LDJBSG surgery.

Digestion and absorption of nutrients primarily occur in the duodenum and proximal jejunum [22]. The duodenum plays an important role in the absorption of minerals in deficiency states [23,24]. In SDJB surgery, the risk of calcium and iron deficiency was theoretically less since the duodenal bulb was preserved. Although some patients had asymptomatic iron and calcium deficiencies, they responded well to oral supplements. This response, to some extent, may be related to the preservation of the duodenal bulb. The major complication rate in this study was 0.88%, which was low. Nor Hanipah et al. [21] showed a complication rate of 3.6% requiring reoperation. None of the patients in this study developed symptoms suggestive of dumping syndrome or internal hernias. Internal hernia is one of the most common complications of RYGB. According to the statistics of a meta-analysis, the incidence of internal hernia was found to be 1% in patients who underwent RYGB with the antecolic Roux limb and closure of the mesenteric and Petersen defects [4].

Morbid obesity and diabetes increase the risk of cancers [25,26], and bariatric surgery can reduce this risk [27]. SDJB surgery was not performed in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. There was no incidence of postoperative gastroesophageal reflux in this study. The modification of dividing the RGA and keeping the sleeve and duodenal bulb in the vertical position could reduce reflux to some extent.

The limitations of SDJB surgery are that it is a technically complex procedure and requires a steep learning curve. Access to the biliary tract was lost in SDJB surgery as the second part of the duodenum was excluded. The results indicated that SDJB surgery appeared to be safe to treat patients suffering from morbid obesity and diabetes. Long-term data from multiple centers is desirable to standardize and evaluate the exact efficacy of this novel surgery.

In severely obese patients with type 2 diabetes, bariatric surgery resulted in better glucose control than did medical therapy. Preoperative BMI and weight loss did not predict the improvement in hyperglycemia after these procedures [28].

Naitoh et al. [29] found that at the 1-year postoperative follow-up, remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus (HbA1c <6.5%, off medications) after surgery was 80.8% for LSG and 86.0% for LSG/DJB, which is pretty much similar result with our data.

Insufficient cases and retrospective data collection could be a limitation and weak point if this study. However, SDJB surgery with a 200-cm biliopancreatic limb was a safe and effective procedure to treat weight loss of morbid obesity and improvement of diabetes control in short term. Also we believe this paper will help in deciding the surgical method, as a reference for bariatric surgery in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

None.

References

1. Popkin BM, Adair LS, Ng SW. Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutr Rev. 2012;70:3–21. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Szczuko M, Komorniak N, Hoffmann M, et al. Body weight reduction and biochemical parameters of the patients after RYGB and SG bariatric procedures in 12-month observation. Obes Surg. 2017;27:940–947. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Deylgat B, D'Hondt M, Pottel H, Vansteenkiste F, Van Rooy F, Devriendt D. Indications, safety, and feasibility of conversion of failed bariatric surgery to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a retrospective comparative study with primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:1997–2002. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Huang CK, Tai CM, Chang PC, Malapan K, Tsai CC, Yolsuriyanwong K. Loop duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy: comparative study with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in type 2 diabetic patients with a BMI <35 kg/m(2), first year results. Obes Surg. 2016;26:2291–2301. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Lee PC, Dixon J. Bariatric-metabolic surgery: a guide for the primary care physician. Aust Fam Physician. 2017;46:465–471. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Moulla Y, Lyros O, Blüher M, Simon P, Dietrich A. Feasibility and safety of bariatric surgery in high-risk patients: a single-center experience. J Obes. 2018;2018:7498258. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Hess DS, Hess DW, Oakley RS. The biliopancreatic diversion with the duodenal switch: results beyond 10 years. Obes Surg. 2005;15:408–416. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Clapp B, Wynn M, Martyn C, Foster C, O'Dell M, Tyroch A. Long term (7 or more years) outcomes of the sleeve gastrectomy: a meta-analysis. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018;14:741–747. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Kothari SN, Borgert AJ, Kallies KJ, Baker MT, Grover BT. Long-term (>10-year) outcomes after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13:972–978. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Tornese S, Aiolfi A, Bonitta G, et al. Remnant gastric cancer after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: narrative review of the literature. Obes Surg. 2019;29:2609–2613. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Mangan A, Le Roux CW, Miller NG, Docherty NG. Iron and vitamin D/calcium deficiency after gastric bypass: mechanisms involved and strategies to improve oral supplement disposition. Curr Drug Metab. 2019;20:244–252. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Emous M, Wolffenbuttel BHR, Totté E, van Beek AP. The short-to mid-term symptom prevalence of dumping syndrome after primary gastric-bypass surgery and its impact on health-related quality of life. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13:1489–1500. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Geubbels N, Lijftogt N, Fiocco M, van Leersum NJ, Wouters MW, de Brauw LM. Meta-analysis of internal herniation after gastric bypass surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102:451–460. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Rheinwalt KP, Plamper A, Rückbeil MV, Kroh A, Neumann UP, Ulmer TF. One anastomosis gastric bypass-mini-gastric bypass (OAGB-MGB) versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB)-a mid-term cohort study with 612 patients. Obes Surg. 2020;30:1230–1240. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Homan J, Betzel B, Aarts EO, et al. Vitamin and mineral deficiencies after biliopancreatic diversion and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch--the rule rather than the exception. Obes Surg. 2015;25:1626–1632. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Huang CK, Goel R, Tai CM, Yen YC, Gohil VD, Chen XY. Novel metabolic surgery for type II diabetes mellitus: loop duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013;23:481–485. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Brown WA, Ooi G, Higa K, Himpens J, Torres A. Single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy/one anastomosis duodenal switch (SADI-S/OADS) IFSO position statement. Obes Surg. 2018;28:1207–1216. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Dallegrave Marchesini JC. End-to-side duodeno-jejunostomy with half-and-half biliopancreatic limb for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a proposal for a simpler technique. Obes Surg. 2007;17:138–139. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Seki Y, Kasama K, Haruta H, et al. Five-year-results of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with duodenojejunal bypass for weight loss and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Obes Surg. 2017;27:795–801. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Maciejewski ML, Arterburn DE, Van Scoyoc L, et al. Bariatric surgery and long-term durability of weight loss. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:1046–1055. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Nor Hanipah Z, Hsin MC, Liu CC, Huang CK. Laparoscopic loop duodenaljejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy in type 2 diabetic patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019;15:696–702. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Sawaya RA, Jaffe J, Friedenberg L, Friedenberg FK. Vitamin, mineral, and drug absorption following bariatric surgery. Curr Drug Metab. 2012;13:1345–1355. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Fuqua BK, Vulpe CD, Anderson GJ. Intestinal iron absorption. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2012;26:115–119. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Bronner F. Mechanisms of intestinal calcium absorption. J Cell Biochem. 2003;88:387–393. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Avgerinos KI, Spyrou N, Mantzoros CS, Dalamaga M. Obesity and cancer risk: emerging biological mechanisms and perspectives. Metabolism. 2019;92:121–135. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Wojciechowska J, Krajewski W, Bolanowski M, Kręcicki T, Zatoński T. Diabetes and cancer: a review of current knowledge. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2016;124:263–275. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Maestro A, Rigla M, Caixàs A. Does bariatric surgery reduce cancer risk? A review of the literature. Endocrinol Nutr. 2015;62:138–143. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Mingrone G, Panunzi S, De Gaetano A, et al. Bariatric surgery versus conventional medical therapy for type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1577–1585. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Naitoh T, Kasama K, Seki Y, et al. Efficacy of sleeve gastrectomy with duodenal-jejunal bypass for the treatment of obese severe diabetes patients in Japan: a retrospective multicenter study. Obes Surg. 2018;28:497–505. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery are provided here courtesy of Korean Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery

Short-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy with Duodenojejunal Bypass for Morbid Obesity (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Nathanial Hackett

Last Updated:

Views: 6063

Rating: 4.1 / 5 (52 voted)

Reviews: 83% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Nathanial Hackett

Birthday: 1997-10-09

Address: Apt. 935 264 Abshire Canyon, South Nerissachester, NM 01800

Phone: +9752624861224

Job: Forward Technology Assistant

Hobby: Listening to music, Shopping, Vacation, Baton twirling, Flower arranging, Blacksmithing, Do it yourself

Introduction: My name is Nathanial Hackett, I am a lovely, curious, smiling, lively, thoughtful, courageous, lively person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.