Advertisement

Obesity Surgery

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 306–308 | Cite as

In Reply to the Invitation from the Editor to the Letter “What Is the Current Evidence to Define the Length of the Alimentary Limb in the Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass Technique?”

  • Yingjin Wang
  • Chen Xie
  • Xiaodong ZhouEmail author
Letter to Editor/LED Reply
  • 37 Downloads

Dear Editor,

We had sincerely read the letter from the reviewers. We appreciated the substantial review on our article and in the meantime, we were so honored and so grateful to submit a satisfying reply as far as we could.

To Answer the Question in the Title

Alimentary limb (AL) was defined as the bowel segment from the gastrojejunal anastomosis to the jejunojejunal anastomosis [1, 2]. Some studies [3, 4, 5] performed this segment at the length of 40–100 cm, which was defined as “short” in our meta-analysis. Some [3, 4, 5, 6, 7] measured 130–150 cm of the segment, which was regarded as “standard.” Some [6, 7] used alimentary limb length at 170–250 cm, regarded as “long.”

Although the bowel segment was clearly defined, unfortunately, the detailed technique of the measurement was not distinctly described in most studies. Most studies illustrated the length by use of figures. It was an unescapable fact that a potential heterogeneity existed in the measurement of AL among these studies...

Abbreviations

RYGB

Rou-en-Y gastric bypass

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks so much again for the great interest and substantial review of our meta-analysis. We are very willing to reply more letters to us to discuss any questions in this article. Thanks so much for the opportunity and platform for academic exchanges provided by “Obesity Surgery.”

Funding

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81160307 and No. 81560395), the Jiangxi Science and Technology Pillar Programme and the Science Foundation for Young Scholars of Jiangxi Province (No. 2007GQY1167), and Voyage Project of the Jiangxi Province Science and Technology Association.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement on Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Not applicable.

Ethical Approval

Not applicable.

References

  1. 1.
    Higa KD, Ho T, Boone KB. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: technique and 3-year follow-up. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2001;11(6):377–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Svanevik M, Risstad H, Hofsø D, et al. Perioperative outcomes of proximal and distal gastric bypass in patients with BMI ranged 50–60 kg/m2-a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Obes Surg. 2015;25(10):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dogan K, Homan J, Aarts EO, et al. A short or a long Roux limb in gastric bypass surgery: does it matter? Surg Endosc. 2017;31(4):1882–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ciovica R, Takata M, Vittinghoff E, et al. The impact of roux limb length on weight loss after gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2008;18(1):5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gleysteen JJ. Five-year outcome with gastric bypass: Roux limb length makes a difference. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2009;5(2):242–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sarhan M, Choi JJ, Sawwaf MA, et al. Is weight loss better sustained with long-limb gastric bypass in the super-obese? Obes Surg. 2011;21(9):1337–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Risstad H, Svanevik M, Kristinsson JA, et al. Standard vs distal Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in patients with body mass index 50 to 60: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(12):1146–55. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/503/CN-01331503/frame.html. Accessed 5 Oct 2018.
  8. 8.
    Brolin RE, Kenler HA, Gorman JH, et al. Long-limb gastric bypass in the superobese. A prospective randomized study. Ann Surg. 1992;215(4):387–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choban PS, Flancbaum L. The effect of Roux limb lengths on outcome after roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Obes Surg. 2002;12(4):540–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Inabnet WB, Quinn T, Gagner M, et al. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in patients with BMI <50: a prospective randomized trial comparing short and long limb lengths. Obes Surg. 2005;15(1):51–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. 102–8 pGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008. 285–312 pGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GastroenterologyThe First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang UniversityNanchangChina
  2. 2.Second Clinical Medical CollegeNanchang UniversityNanchangChina
  3. 3.Fourth Clinical Medical CollegeNanchang UniversityNanchangChina

Personalised recommendations