BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to compare Roux-en-Y limb motor patterns after total or distal gastrectomy, and to identify possible motor differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The usefulness of preoperative recording was also investigated. STUDY DESIGN: Sixteen patients were enrolled in the study, 10 patients after total gastrectomy (TG group) and 6 patients after distal gastrectomy (DG group). In 6 of 10 patients in the TG group, recordings were obtained before and after operation. Manometric recordings in the limb lasted 6 hours in all patients, 3 hours during fasting, and 3 hours after a 750-kcal meal. An intravenous injection of trimebutine (100-mg i.v.) was systematically administered at the end of each recording session. Motor results of the patients were compared with those obtained in the intact jejunum of 20 healthy controls. RESULTS: After operation, when patients were compared with controls, phase III (ie, regular activity of the migrating motor complex) was more frequent and more often incompletely propagated (5 of 16 patients versus 1 of 20 controls, unadjusted p < 0.05) and was significantly slower (p < 0.01 versus controls). Intravenous trimebutine induced phase III in 12 of 16 patients within a mean of 8.8 +/- 1 (SEM) minutes, longer than in controls (delay < 2 minutes). The fed pattern was shorter than in controls in both TG and DG groups, and the postprandial area under the curve during successive 30-minute periods was reduced in the DG group compared with controls (p < 0.01). In patients investigated before gastrectomy, motor parameters were not different from those of controls. Surgery resulted in an increased number of phase IIIs and a decreased migration velocity (p < 0.01) of phase III, a longer delay in response after trimebutine (p < 0.0001), and a reduced postprandial motor response (p < 0.01). After the operation, 4 of 10 patients in the TG group and 5 of 6 patients in the DG group were symptomatic. Symptomatic patients had slower and more often incompletely propagated (p < 0.01) phase III compared with asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Roux-en-Y limb reconstruction mainly disturbs phase III propagation and the motor response to a meal. Motor changes are more marked after DG than after TG. Disturbed phase III propagation is the main difference between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Successful induction of phase III with trimebutine after gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y reconstruction indicates maintenance of encephalinergic mechanisms.
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to compare Roux-en-Y limb motor patterns after total or distal gastrectomy, and to identify possible motor differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The usefulness of preoperative recording was also investigated. STUDY DESIGN: Sixteen patients were enrolled in the study, 10 patients after total gastrectomy (TG group) and 6 patients after distal gastrectomy (DG group). In 6 of 10 patients in the TG group, recordings were obtained before and after operation. Manometric recordings in the limb lasted 6 hours in all patients, 3 hours during fasting, and 3 hours after a 750-kcal meal. An intravenous injection of trimebutine (100-mg i.v.) was systematically administered at the end of each recording session. Motor results of the patients were compared with those obtained in the intact jejunum of 20 healthy controls. RESULTS: After operation, when patients were compared with controls, phase III (ie, regular activity of the migrating motor complex) was more frequent and more often incompletely propagated (5 of 16 patients versus 1 of 20 controls, unadjusted p < 0.05) and was significantly slower (p < 0.01 versus controls). Intravenous trimebutine induced phase III in 12 of 16 patients within a mean of 8.8 +/- 1 (SEM) minutes, longer than in controls (delay < 2 minutes). The fed pattern was shorter than in controls in both TG and DG groups, and the postprandial area under the curve during successive 30-minute periods was reduced in the DG group compared with controls (p < 0.01). In patients investigated before gastrectomy, motor parameters were not different from those of controls. Surgery resulted in an increased number of phase IIIs and a decreased migration velocity (p < 0.01) of phase III, a longer delay in response after trimebutine (p < 0.0001), and a reduced postprandial motor response (p < 0.01). After the operation, 4 of 10 patients in the TG group and 5 of 6 patients in the DG group were symptomatic. Symptomatic patients had slower and more often incompletely propagated (p < 0.01) phase III compared with asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Roux-en-Y limb reconstruction mainly disturbs phase III propagation and the motor response to a meal. Motor changes are more marked after DG than after TG. Disturbed phase III propagation is the main difference between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Successful induction of phase III with trimebutine after gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y reconstruction indicates maintenance of encephalinergic mechanisms.