Question:
Which type is better for me?
Can anyone explain the benefits of the RNY vs those of the BPD/DS? Which is better if you have more than 175# to lose? What is the real difference? How different is the absorption and what does that mean for the long term longevity/complications? I have been to many websites, but alot of them are full of technical jargon. So I am looking for responses from those who made a decision between the two proceedures and why? Thank you for your help:-) — S B. (posted on April 27, 2001)
April 27, 2001
I think that all of the different types of surgery will work for some
people, depending on your situation. I had the VBG and it has worked
wonderful for me. I know that a lot of people "dis" that type of
surgery here, but I think it just depends on your situation and your
surgeon. Attitude is probably just as important as any other factor. Good
Luck.
— Harold R.
April 28, 2001
Personally, I studied and talked to enough people to come to a conclusion
for myself that said the following: 'NO' to VBG because of the high
failure rate & number of people I've met who had them later changed to
RNY, 'No' to the surgeries with the most malabsorption because of possible
long-term health consequences and 'No' to the mini gastric bypass because
large volume of the negative things I heard about it. I said 'YES' to Roux
En Y gastric bypass because of the recommendations by the National Health
Institute and the many success stories I learned of on this site. My
bypass is 5 feet (I say it is Medial, not proximal nor distal). My surgeon
does this surgery with a 'Fobi twist' as I like to call it: he transects
the stomach completely, he puts a marker on the 'old stomach' so it can be
found later if necessary, and he puts a band around the exit hole from the
new pouch so it won't stretch out allowing bigger bites and more food to
easily pass through later. He doesn't make the pouch quite as small as
Fobi, but that's ok by me. My neighbor also chose this and she had a bit
more to lose than I did, but about the same as you and she's done
remarkably well. I do suggest you wade through the 'technical jargon' as
that is the best way to educate yourself. However, the way you worded your
question is good, you want our opinions and how we made our decisions.
Just take them as that, and not necessarily the answer for you. Best
wishes.
— Cindy H.
April 28, 2001
Here's a link on RNY vs. DS:
(http://www.duodenalswitch.com/Procedure/DS_vs__RNY/ds_vs__rny.html) -- cut
& paste. You might also want to check out the Revision list & see
which surgeries are needing revisions down the road:
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OSSG-Revision)cut & paste. Good luck in
your research! --->>
— [Deactivated Member]
April 28, 2001
HI. You asked why we chose what we did and I thought that I would give you
my limited experience. Two years ago I chose the BPD/DS. I chose this
surgery for a number of reasons. One, because it has a very high success
rate for people wanted to lose great amounts. Two, it was made clear to me
that afterwards, your eating habits will be basically very normal (which
they are, I can eat anything), Three, I had a friend who had the VBG and it
failed. Four, I couldn't stand the thought of limiting my foods and not
drinking with the RNY. Five and foremost, my doctor pressed the BPD/DS
very much. He was just starting to do the BPD/DS at the time and made it
seem like the best option.
Okay, after all of that is said and done, I have to say that I am sorry I
didn't chose the RNY. I am one of the rare few, who have had many many
complications from the BPD/DS. I malabsorb "everything" it seems
and have injections weekly to supplement a number of things. I am not
saying it's a bad surgery, just that it was bad for me. Even after knowing
all of the pros and cons of each surgery, I doubt that anyone would have
been aware of all of the problems that I am having. Just know that each
surgery has it's good and bad and be prepared for the worst but expect the
best. I just think that the RNY is alittle safer long termwise. Good luck
to you in whatever you choose.
— Barbara H.
April 29, 2001
From my own lay-person perspective, there are two major differences between
the RNY and DS: (1) The RNY redesigns the stomach function by creating a
small pouch; the pouch does not function like a stomach (there is little
digestion, few stomach acids, no pyloric valve) but more like a holding bin
for the food you eat, before it is passed into the intestine. The DS
leaves the entire stomach function intact, and approximately 2/3's of the
stomach is surgically removed, reducing the volume, but retaining the
digestive function. (2) In the most popular RNY, there is only a small
amount of intestine bypassed. In the most popular DS, there is a very
large amount of intestine bypassed. The result of intestinal bypass is
malabsorption of the foods you eat. The more malabsorption, the greater
the weight loss, ease of maintenance, and the higher the potential for
malnutrition. The RNY can also be done with a greater bypass if
recommended by your surgeon. Okay - so much for my explanation. I like
the NYU sites for a picture of the actual surgical differences, but there
is simply no substitute for wading through the technical jargon for the
effects of the surgeries.
http://www.med.nyu.edu/bariatric/operations/BPDflash.html
http://thinforlife.med.nyu.edu/operations/RYGBflash.html
My decision between the two procedures was similar to Barbara's, except
that my doctor did not push one procedure over the other, and in fact,
questioned me to make sure I understood the possible downsides of greater
bypass. (1) I am prone to vomiting, and did not want a procedure which
made it possible or probable to have problems with keeping food down; (2) I
wanted my stomach to function like a regular stomach, just not able to hold
as much food!; (3) I wanted to maintain my eating habits and styles as much
as possible - I did not want to have to limit the types of food I ate, and
did not think I was likely to be compliant about chewing and drinking; (4)
given my extraordinary metabolism, I believed I needed a highly
malabsorptive procedure to maintain the weight loss. My experience has
been extremely positive; 75% of my weight has been lost at 10 months, no
complications, no nutritional deficiences, no problems at all, actually. I
am conscientious about taking my vitamins and monitoring my protein intake
to insure it is high, and am optimistic about the future. - Kate -
— kateseidel
Click Here to Return