Next Article in Journal
The Effects of Four Weeks of Chiropractic Spinal Adjustments on Blood Biomarkers in Adults with Chronic Stroke: Secondary Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Next Article in Special Issue
Marginal Ulcers after Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Management
Previous Article in Journal
Functional Polymorphism in the ADRB3 Gene, Encoding the Beta-3 Adrenergic Receptor, and Response to Intra-Detrusor Injection of Botulinum Toxin-A in Women with Overactive Bladder
Previous Article in Special Issue
Periodontal Therapy in Bariatric Surgery Patients with Periodontitis: Randomized Control Clinical Trial
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Case Report

“Orphaned” Stomach—An Infrequent Complication of Gastric Bypass Revision

by
Dimitrios N. Varvoglis
1,
Manuel Sanchez-Casalongue
1,
Todd H. Baron
2 and
Timothy M. Farrell
1,*
1
Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA
2
Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(24), 7487; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11247487
Submission received: 6 November 2022 / Revised: 12 December 2022 / Accepted: 13 December 2022 / Published: 17 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Complications in Bariatric Surgery (Aftermath and Comorbidities))

Abstract

:
While generally safe, bariatric operations have a variety of possible complications. We present an uncommon complication after gastric bypass revision, namely the creation of an “orphaned” segment of remnant stomach that was left inadvertently in discontinuity, leading to recurrent intra-abdominal abscesses. Sinogram ultimately proved the diagnosis, and the issue was successfully treated using a combination of surgical and endoscopic methods to control the abscess and to allow internal drainage.

1. Introduction

Obesity is a major public health problem worldwide. It affects quality of life and contributes to many comorbid conditions, including type-II diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, and several cancers [1]. Non-surgical treatments include behavior modification through diet, exercise, and psychological support, as well as pharmacotherapy. Unfortunately, many patients fail to respond adequately.
Bariatric surgery offers the best contemporary option for effective and durable weight loss. Different bariatric procedures exist, including restrictive operations such as sleeve gastrectomy and adjustable gastric banding, and combined restrictive and malabsorptive operations such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RGB) and duodenal switch. According to recent data, RGB is the second most commonly performed bariatric operation [2]. RGB has long been considered the “gold standard” against which newer operations are compared. Even though sleeve gastrectomy is presently more popular worldwide, RGB is still commonly utilized, especially for patients with gastroesophageal reflux and sweet-eating tendencies. In fact, as recently as 2014, RGB was the principle bariatric operation performed in the United States [3].
While the expected excess weight loss after RGB ranges from 60–75% at 5 years [4,5,6,7], more than half of patients may have inadequate weight loss or substantial regain of weight [8,9]. Likewise, some RGB patients may present with late anatomic complications such as recurrent marginal ulcer, gastrojejunal stricture, or gastro-gastric fistula [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. Therefore, surgeons are likely to encounter patients with RGB anatomy who request revisional procedures for these reasons.

2. Detailed Case Description

A 43-year-old woman presented in mid-2020 after a complex past surgical history. She initially had a laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in 2014 for severe obesity, but she had a regain of weight. In late 2019, she had laparoscopic revision, which included reduction of her gastric pouch and redo of her gastrojejunostomy. In doing this, the surgeon resected a portion of her remnant stomach that was densely adherent to the posterior gastrojejunostomy.
The patient had a complicated postoperative course and developed intra-abdominal abscesses which were not readily amenable to percutaneous drainage. Therefore, in early 2020, she underwent laparoscopy, which required conversion to open laparotomy for an abdominal washout. At operation, the presumed left upper quadrant fluid collection was judged to be a segment of the remnant stomach.
Shortly thereafter, the patient moved to North Carolina and was admitted at a small hospital complaining of abdominal and left shoulder pain. On computerized tomography (CT) scan, a perisplenic fluid collection was noted (Figure 1). She was admitted and underwent percutaneous drain placement by interventional radiology. Despite intravenous antibiotics, the patient developed a significant leukocytosis with increasing drain output and was transferred to our academic medical center for further management.
The patient underwent a sinogram that showed the drain was in an apparent abscess cavity. An upper gastrointestinal contrast study (Figure 2) and CT sinogram both failed to show evidence of a fistula feeding the cavity. The patient had resolution of her leukocytosis and was discharged to home with the drain in place.
After three weeks, a follow-up sinogram showed no residual cavity, and the drain was removed. However, the patient was admitted shortly thereafter due to severe pain. A repeat CT scan (Figure 3) showed a multiloculated fluid collection above the remnant stomach that had been separated from the previous drain.
The patient was taken to operation and had laparoscopic lysis of adhesions and washout of a purulent cavity at the above-noted site. A surgical drain was left in place (Figure 4). A remnant gastrostomy was added for decompression of the distal stomach. Her symptoms improved dramatically. She was sent home on broad-spectrum IV antibiotics with closed suction drainage of her abscess cavity and gravity drainage of her remnant stomach. The antibiotic regimen was later refined to Augmentin and Fluconazole based on cultures.
The patient was evaluated in clinic 10 days later, at which time her remnant gastrostomy was clamped due to low output. She returned two weeks after that, and a repeat sinogram showed a small fistula between a portion of the remnant stomach and the surgical drain (Figure 5). This area did not connect with the proximal gastric pouch or the alimentary limb.
About six weeks after her most recent operation, she had retrograde endoscopy through the remnant gastrostomy site, which demonstrated no connection into the “orphaned” portion of stomach that was feeding the fistula (Figure 6 and Figure 7). The excluded segment was then visualized by injection of contrast through the surgical drain under fluoroscopy (Figure 8). A 19-gauge FNA needle was used to puncture the orphan stomach from the remnant (Figure 9), followed by a guidewire (Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12). The tract was dilated up to 6 mm with a balloon (Figure 13, Figure 14, Figure 15 and Figure 16), and a 8 mm × 40 mm covered metal biliary stent was placed across the divide (Figure 17 and Figure 18). Then, a 7Fr × 4 cm double pigtail stent was placed inside this to facilitate drainage (Figure 19 and Figure 20). The gastrostomy was replaced, and the surgical drain was removed.
Six weeks later, repeat retrograde endoscopy was performed, and the covered stent and pigtail were removed. A 5-mm gastrogastrostomy was noted. Two 7 Fr × 4 cm double pigtail stents were placed to maintain patency of the therapeutic gastro-gastric fistula. The remnant gastrostomy was removed.
One month later, the patient reported a 12-pound weight gain and was feeling well. CT scan showed stents in place and no collections (Figure 21).
Over the subsequent year, she was referred to colleagues in bariatric medicine due to mild weight regain and patient concerns about excessive weight regain. She had a follow up CT scan after one year that showed the pigtail drains were still in place (Figure 22). She has been referred back to GI to discuss retrograde endoscopy through the biliopancreatic limb and stent removal.

3. Discussion

An “orphaned” stomach segment is an unusual complication after revisional gastric surgery that is not well represented in the surgical literature. One similar case was reported after gastric bypass reversal [19], where a non-partitioned gastric bypass was reversed by resection of the gastrojejunostomy and creation of a gastrogastrostomy. In this case, postoperative leukocytosis and symptoms prompted a CT scan, which revealed a distended isolated gastric segment between staple lines. The surgeons had a high index of suspicion and were able to perform antegrade endoscopy with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to facilitate trans-gastric stenting, which resolved the issue.
In the present case report, we have shown that an isolated stomach segment may also occur after revision of a prior bariatric procedure. Both vertical banded gastroplasty and gastric bypass may require revision due to complications or weight regain. Vertical banded gastroplasty can have band erosion or staple line breakdown. RGB can have recurring marginal ulcers, gastrojejunal strictures, pouch dilation, or gastro-gastric fistula from staple line dehiscence. It is important to note that, before the development of the current generation of endostaplers, which divide tissue between rows of staples, bariatric procedures utilized multi-row partitioning staplers that did not divide and separate the stomach segments. Sometimes, such staple lines can recanalize, making revisional procedures necessary.
In reoperative cases, the presence of scar and the nature of staple line healing make it very difficult for a surgeon to recognize the location of residual areas of intact pre-existing staple lines. Therefore, during revision gastroplasty, it is possible for a new staple line to inadvertently cross an existing length of intact prior staple line, such that a segment of stomach can have limited or no continuity with the gastric outflow channel.
Surgical strategies to limit this risk include use of intraoperative endoscopy, or, if laparoscopic visualization does not allow appreciation of the course of prior staple lines, use of laparotomy to allow tactile benefits. In addition, when one is operating to re-establish gastric restriction after an incomplete staple line dehiscence in the setting of a previously non-divided gastroplasty, it may be prudent to open the stomach and internally divide any residual areas of intact partition (using a linear stapler) prior to forming a new divided gastroplasty.
Use of directed transgastric stents is increasingly common for other indications. Mature pancreatic pseudocysts can be internally drained through the posterior stomach with endoscopic and ultrasound guidance [20,21,22,23]. After RGB, gastro-gastric stents have been used to allow antegrade access to the duodenum and biliary system for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures [20,24,25]. In addition, in cases of gastric or duodenal obstruction, transgastric stents have been placed for gastro-enterostomy [26,27,28]. In all of these situations, EUS is very helpful to visualize the target organ.
In the present case, EUS was not possible due to the use of a gastrostomy site for access to the remnant stomach. Instead, sinogram under fluoroscopy allowed visualization of the target for stenting and assessment of the tissue bridge to be traversed. Use of retrograde endoscopy via a gastrostomy site has been conducted before [29,30,31,32]. In such cases, it is important to allow the gastrostomy site to mature, such that the stomach is adherent to the anterior abdominal wall. Sufficient gastric fixation usually requires the tube be in place at least four weeks, or longer in malnourished or diabetic patients [33,34,35].
Recurring abscesses after revisional gastric surgery without a leak from the alimentary path should raise suspicion of a gastric fistula arising from an unrecognized leak from the bypassed gastric remnant or, in rare cases, from an “orphaned” segment of stomach. In the case of an isolated stomach segment separate from the proper gastric remnant, multidisciplinary evaluation with interventional radiology, gastroenterology, and bariatric surgery providers can help make the diagnosis and allow consideration of advanced endoscopic techniques for internal drainage without the need for major gastric resection.

Author Contributions

D.N.V.: Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing; M.S.-C.: Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing; T.H.B.: Conceptualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing; T.M.F.: Project administration, Supervision, Conceptualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This submission, Reference ID 377514, was reviewed by the Office of Human Research Ethics at UNC, which has determined that this submission does not constitute human subjects research as defined under federal regulations [45 CFR 46.102 (e or l) and 21 CFR 56.102(c)(e)(l)] and does not require IRB approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Obesity and Overweight. Available online: http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight (accessed on 12 January 2022).
  2. Angrisani, L.; Santonicola, A.; Iovino, P.; Vitiello, A.; Higa, K.; Himpens, J.; Buchwald, H.; Scopinaro, N. IFSO Worldwide Survey 2016: Primary, Endoluminal, and Revisional Procedures. Obes. Surg. 2018, 28, 3783–3794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Chung, A.Y.; Strassle, P.D.; Schlottmann, F.; Patti, M.G.; Duke, M.C.; Farrell, T.M. Trends in Utilization and Relative Complication Rates of Bariatric Procedures. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2019, 23, 1362–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Golzarand, M.; Toolabi, K.; Farid, R. The bariatric surgery and weight losing: A meta-analysis in the long- and very long-term effects of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy on weight loss in adults. Surg. Endosc. 2017, 31, 4331–4345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dogan, K.; Gadiot, R.P.M.; Aarts, E.O.; Betzel, B.; van Laarhoven, C.J.H.M.; Biter, L.U.; Mannaerts, G.H.H.; Aufenacker, T.J.; Janssen, I.M.C.; Berends, F.J. Effectiveness and Safety of Sleeve Gastrectomy, Gastric Bypass, and Adjustable Gastric Banding in Morbidly Obese Patients: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Matched Cohort Study. Obes. Surg. 2015, 25, 1110–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Perrone, F.; Bianciardi, E.; Ippoliti, S.; Nardella, J.; Fabi, F.; Gentileschi, P. Long-term effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity: A monocentric prospective study with minimum follow-up of 5 years. Updat. Surg. 2017, 69, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sharples, A.J.; Mahawar, K. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Long-Term Outcomes of Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy. Obes. Surg. 2020, 30, 664–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Magro, D.O.; Geloneze, B.; Delfini, R.; Pareja, B.C.; Callejas, F.; Pareja, J.C. Long-term Weight Regain after Gastric Bypass: A 5-year Prospective Study. Obes. Surg. 2008, 18, 648–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Christou, N.V.; Look, D.; MacLean, L.D. Weight Gain after Short- and Long-Limb Gastric Bypass in Patients Followed for Longer than 10 Years. Ann. Surg. 2006, 244, 734–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Peterli, R.; Wölnerhanssen, B.; Peters, T.; Vetter, D.; Kröll, D.; Borbély, Y.; Schultes, B.; Beglinger, C.; Drewe, J.; Schiesser, M.; et al. Effect of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy vs. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass on Weight Loss in Patients with Morbid Obesity. JAMA 2018, 319, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Azagury, D.E.; Abu Dayyeh, B.K.; Greenwalt, I.T.; Thompson, C.C. Marginal ulceration after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery: Characteristics, risk factors, treatment, and outcomes. Endoscopy 2011, 43, 950–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Csendes, A.; Burgos, A.M.; Altuve, J.; Bonacic, S. Incidence of Marginal Ulcer 1 Month and 1 to 2 Years after Gastric Bypass: A Prospective Consecutive Endoscopic Evaluation of 442 Patients with Morbid Obesity. Obes. Surg. 2009, 19, 135–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. El-Hayek, K.; Timratana, P.; Shimizu, H.; Chand, B. Marginal ulcer after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: What have we really learned? Surg. Endosc. 2012, 26, 2789–2796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Capella, J.F.; Capella, R.F. Gastro-Gastric Fistulas and Marginal Ulcers in Gastric Bypass Procedures for Weight Reduction. Obes. Surg. 1999, 9, 22–27, discussion 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Carrodeguas, L.; Szomstein, S.; Soto, F.; Whipple, O.; Simpfendorfer, C.; Gonzalvo, J.P.; Villares, A.; Zundel, N.; Rosenthal, R. Management of gastrogastric fistulas after divided Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery for morbid obesity: Analysis of 1292 consecutive patients and review of literature. Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. 2005, 1, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Chahine, E.; Kassir, R.; Dirani, M.; Joumaa, S.; Debs, T.; Chouillard, E. Surgical Management of Gastrogastric Fistula After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: 10-Year Experience. Obes. Surg. 2018, 28, 939–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yimcharoen, P.; Heneghan, H.; Chand, B.; Talarico, J.A.; Tariq, N.; Kroh, M.; Brethauer, S.A. Successful management of gastrojejunal strictures after gastric bypass: Is timing important? Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. 2012, 8, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mathew, A.; Veliuona, M.A.; DePalma, F.J.; Cooney, R.N. Gastrojejunal Stricture after Gastric Bypass and Efficacy of Endoscopic Intervention. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2009, 54, 1971–1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bruenderman, E.H.; Vitale, G.C.; Kehdy, F.J. Endoscopic Management of an Excluded Gastric Segment after Reversal of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass. Am. Surg. 2020, 86, e98–e100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Siddiqui, A.A.; DeWitt, J.M.; Strongin, A.; Singh, H.; Jordan, S.; Loren, D.E.; Kowalski, T.; Eloubeidi, M.A. Outcomes of EUS-guided drainage of debris-containing pancreatic pseudocysts by using combined endoprosthesis and a nasocystic drain. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2013, 78, 589–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pereira, F.; Caldeira, A.; Leite, S.; Marques, S.; Moreira, T.; Moutinho-Ribeiro, P.; Nunes, N.; Bispo, M. GRUPUGE Perspective: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Peripancreatic Collections. GE-Port. J. Gastroenterol. 2020, 28, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ng, P.; Rasmussen, D.; Vilmann, P.; Hassan, H.; Gheorman, V.; Burtea, D.; Surlin, V.; Saftoiu, A. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: Medium-term assessment of outcomes and complications. Endosc. Ultrasound 2013, 2, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Sãftoiu, A.; Vilmann, A.; Vilmann, P. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. Endosc. Ultrasound 2015, 4, 319–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Vedantam, S.; Roberts, J. Endoscopic Stents in the Management of Bariatric Complications: Our Algorithm and Outcomes. Obes. Surg. 2020, 30, 1150–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kanters, A.E.; Shubeck, S.P.; Varban, O.A.; Dimick, J.B.; Telem, D.A. Incidence and Efficacy of Stent Placement in Leak Management after Bariatric Surgery: An MBSAQIP Analysis. Ann. Surg. 2020, 271, 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Phillips, M.S.; Gosain, S.; Bonatti, H.; Friel, C.M.; Ellen, K.; Northup, P.G.; Kahaleh, M. Enteral Stents for Malignancy: A Report of 46 Consecutive Cases over 10 years, with Critical Review of Complications. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2008, 12, 2045–2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Khashab, M.; Alawad, A.S.; Shin, E.J.; Kim, K.; Bourdel, N.; Singh, V.K.; Lennon, A.M.; Hutfless, S.; Sharaiha, R.Z.; Amateau, S.; et al. Enteral stenting versus gastrojejunostomy for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Surg. Endosc. 2013, 27, 2068–2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Binmoeller, K.F.; Shah, J.N. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy using novel tools designed for transluminal therapy: A porcine study. Endoscopy 2012, 44, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. de Lima, M.F.; Nunes, N.; Sousa, L.; Duarte, M.A. Opening New Ways through the Esophagus with Combined Anterograde-Retrograde Recanalization. GE-Port. J. Gastroenterol. 2021, 28, 364–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tang, S.-J.; Wu, R.; Chatha, A.M. Combined Antegrade and Retrograde Endoscopy (CARE) with Pharyngo-esophageal Puncture (PEP) for Complete Esophageal Introital Obstruction. Video J. Encycl. GI Endosc. 2014, 2, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Nishiwaki, S.; Hatakeyama, H.; Iwashita, M.; Araki, H. Transgastrostomal Observation and Management Using an Ultrathin Endoscope after Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy. In Therapeutic Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Amjad, W.; Hussain, Q.; Ullah, W.; Hurairah, A. A tough scope to swallow: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Turk. J. Gastroenterol. 2018, 29, 121–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Lohsiriwat, V. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube replacement: A simple procedure? World J. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2013, 5, 14–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Maxwell, C.I.; Hilden, K.; Glasgow, R.E.; Ollerenshaw, J.; Carlisle, J.G.; Fang, J.C. Evaluation of Gastropexy and Stoma Tract Maturation Using a Novel Introducer Kit for Percutaneous Gastrostomy in a Porcine Model. J. Parenter. Enter. Nutr. 2011, 35, 630–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Wilson, M.T.; Milanchi, S. Malposition of percutaneous endoscopic-guided gastrostomy: Guideline and management. J. Minimal Access Surg. 2008, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Initial CT showing LUQ abscess.
Figure 1. Initial CT showing LUQ abscess.
Jcm 11 07487 g001
Figure 2. UGI series showing no leak from proximal stomach.
Figure 2. UGI series showing no leak from proximal stomach.
Jcm 11 07487 g002
Figure 3. CT showing multiloculated abscess and suspected orphaned stomach segment.
Figure 3. CT showing multiloculated abscess and suspected orphaned stomach segment.
Jcm 11 07487 g003
Figure 4. Abscess drained and remnant G-tube placed (not visible) after laparoscopic surgery.
Figure 4. Abscess drained and remnant G-tube placed (not visible) after laparoscopic surgery.
Jcm 11 07487 g004
Figure 5. Sinogram showing fistula to orphaned stomach segment.
Figure 5. Sinogram showing fistula to orphaned stomach segment.
Jcm 11 07487 g005
Figure 6. Endoscopic access to remnant stomach via mature gastrostomy site.
Figure 6. Endoscopic access to remnant stomach via mature gastrostomy site.
Jcm 11 07487 g006
Figure 7. Endoscopic view of blind proximal end of gastric remnant.
Figure 7. Endoscopic view of blind proximal end of gastric remnant.
Jcm 11 07487 g007
Figure 8. Sinogram during retrograde endoscopy to localize orphaned segment of stomach.
Figure 8. Sinogram during retrograde endoscopy to localize orphaned segment of stomach.
Jcm 11 07487 g008
Figure 9. Needle access into orphaned stomach segment.
Figure 9. Needle access into orphaned stomach segment.
Jcm 11 07487 g009
Figure 10. Wire across into orphaned stomach segment (fluoroscopic view).
Figure 10. Wire across into orphaned stomach segment (fluoroscopic view).
Jcm 11 07487 g010
Figure 11. Wire through gastric remnant into orphaned stomach (endoscopic view).
Figure 11. Wire through gastric remnant into orphaned stomach (endoscopic view).
Jcm 11 07487 g011
Figure 12. Wire definitely in orphaned stomach segment.
Figure 12. Wire definitely in orphaned stomach segment.
Jcm 11 07487 g012
Figure 13. Balloon dilation across the divide.
Figure 13. Balloon dilation across the divide.
Jcm 11 07487 g013
Figure 14. Balloon dilation (fluoroscopic view).
Figure 14. Balloon dilation (fluoroscopic view).
Jcm 11 07487 g014
Figure 15. Dilating the balloon.
Figure 15. Dilating the balloon.
Jcm 11 07487 g015
Figure 16. Appearance after dilating.
Figure 16. Appearance after dilating.
Jcm 11 07487 g016
Figure 17. Covered stent insertion (fluoroscopic view).
Figure 17. Covered stent insertion (fluoroscopic view).
Jcm 11 07487 g017
Figure 18. Covered stent insertion (endoscopic view).
Figure 18. Covered stent insertion (endoscopic view).
Jcm 11 07487 g018
Figure 19. Pigtail stent through covered stent (fluoroscopic view).
Figure 19. Pigtail stent through covered stent (fluoroscopic view).
Jcm 11 07487 g019
Figure 20. Pigtail stent through covered stent (endoscopic view).
Figure 20. Pigtail stent through covered stent (endoscopic view).
Jcm 11 07487 g020
Figure 21. Internal pigtail stents seen on lateral view.
Figure 21. Internal pigtail stents seen on lateral view.
Jcm 11 07487 g021
Figure 22. Pigtail stents remain in place 1 year later, again seen on lateral view.
Figure 22. Pigtail stents remain in place 1 year later, again seen on lateral view.
Jcm 11 07487 g022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Varvoglis, D.N.; Sanchez-Casalongue, M.; Baron, T.H.; Farrell, T.M. “Orphaned” Stomach—An Infrequent Complication of Gastric Bypass Revision. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 7487. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11247487

AMA Style

Varvoglis DN, Sanchez-Casalongue M, Baron TH, Farrell TM. “Orphaned” Stomach—An Infrequent Complication of Gastric Bypass Revision. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(24):7487. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11247487

Chicago/Turabian Style

Varvoglis, Dimitrios N., Manuel Sanchez-Casalongue, Todd H. Baron, and Timothy M. Farrell. 2022. "“Orphaned” Stomach—An Infrequent Complication of Gastric Bypass Revision" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 24: 7487. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11247487

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop