Pichamol Jirapinyo1, Diogo T H de Moura2, Christopher C Thompson1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Gastroenterology Department, Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although traditional transoral outlet reduction (TORe) involves argon plasma coagulation (APC) before endoscopic suturing, modified endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has also been used. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of modified ESD-TORe in comparison with traditional APC-TORe. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from patients who underwent modified ESD-TORe and APC-TORe for weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Our outcomes were technical success, adverse events as categorized by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy lexicon, and percent total weight loss (TWL) at 6 and 12 months and patients who underwent ESD-TORe were matched 1:3 based on gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJA) and pouch sizes to those who underwent APC-TORe. TWL between groups was compared. A linear regression was performed to control for any confounders. RESULTS: Nineteen RYGB patients underwent ESD-TORe. Technical success rate was 100%, with no severe adverse events. At 6 and 12 months, patients experienced 13.4% ± 6.6% and 12.1% ± 9.3% TWL, respectively (P < .05 for both). Nineteen ESD-TORe patients were also matched with 57 APC-TORe patients based on GJA and pouch sizes. At 12 months, the ESD-TORe group experienced greater weight loss compared with the APC-TORe group (12.1% ± 9.3% vs 7.5% ± 3.3% TWL, respectively; P = .036). On regression analysis, ESD remained a significant predictor of percent of TWL at 12 months after controlling for age, sex, body mass index, weight regain, and years from RYGB (β = 5.99, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Combining endoscopic tissue dissection with suturing provides greater and more durable weight loss for patients with weight regain after RYGB.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although traditional transoral outlet reduction (TORe) involves argon plasma coagulation (APC) before endoscopic suturing, modified endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has also been used. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of modified ESD-TORe in comparison with traditional APC-TORe. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from patients who underwent modified ESD-TORe and APC-TORe for weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Our outcomes were technical success, adverse events as categorized by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy lexicon, and percent total weight loss (TWL) at 6 and 12 months and patients who underwent ESD-TORe were matched 1:3 based on gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJA) and pouch sizes to those who underwent APC-TORe. TWL between groups was compared. A linear regression was performed to control for any confounders. RESULTS: Nineteen RYGB patients underwent ESD-TORe. Technical success rate was 100%, with no severe adverse events. At 6 and 12 months, patients experienced 13.4% ± 6.6% and 12.1% ± 9.3% TWL, respectively (P < .05 for both). Nineteen ESD-TORe patients were also matched with 57 APC-TORe patients based on GJA and pouch sizes. At 12 months, the ESD-TORe group experienced greater weight loss compared with the APC-TORe group (12.1% ± 9.3% vs 7.5% ± 3.3% TWL, respectively; P = .036). On regression analysis, ESD remained a significant predictor of percent of TWL at 12 months after controlling for age, sex, body mass index, weight regain, and years from RYGB (β = 5.99, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Combining endoscopic tissue dissection with suturing provides greater and more durable weight loss for patients with weight regain after RYGB.
Authors: Peter B Cotton; Glenn M Eisen; Lars Aabakken; Todd H Baron; Matt M Hutter; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Albert Nemcek; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Irving M Pike; Linda Rabeneck; Joseph Romagnuolo; John J Vargo Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: John T Maple; Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Shailendra S Chauhan; Joo Ha Hwang; Sri Komanduri; Michael Manfredi; Vani Konda; Faris M Murad; Uzma D Siddiqui; Subhas Banerjee Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: M Hirao; K Masuda; T Asanuma; H Naka; K Noda; K Matsuura; O Yamaguchi; N Ueda Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1988 May-Jun Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Christopher J Goulet; James A Disario; Lyska Emerson; Kristen Hilden; Richard Holubkov; John C Fang Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Maria Paula Carlin Cambi; Giorgio Alfredo Pedroso Baretta; Daniéla De Oliveira Magro; Cesar Luiz Boguszewski; Igor Braga Ribeiro; Pichamol Jirapinyo; Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-01-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura; Anna Carolina Batista Dantas; Igor Braga Ribeiro; Thomas R McCarty; Flávio Roberto Takeda; Marco Aurelio Santo; Sergio Carlos Nahas; Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2022-02-27
Authors: Donna Maria Abboud; Rebecca Yao; Babusai Rapaka; Rabih Ghazi; Omar M Ghanem; Barham K Abu Dayyeh Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 6.055