• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Internal Hernia After Laparoscopic Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass

Internal Hernia After Laparoscopic Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass

Ayman Obeid, MD, Matthew Breland, MS, Richard Stahl, MD, Ronald H Clements, MD, Jayleen Grams, MD, PhD

University of Alabama at Birmingham, Vanderbilt University

INTRODUCTION: Although laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) has decreased morbidity compared to the open approach, it was initially associated with a higher rate of internal hernia (IH). The aim of this study was to determine the impact of mesenteric defect closure on the rate and characteristics of IH after LRYGB.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Retrospective review was conducted on all patients undergoing LRYGB from 2001-2011. Only patients who had all defects closed (DC) or all defects not closed (DnC) were included. Patients who had an incidentally identified IH at the time of another operation were excluded. Data collected included demographics, clinical presentation, operative details, and postoperative course. Data were analyzed using SPSS (version 16) statistical software.

RESULTS: There were 1160 patients who underwent LRYGB from 2001-2011 and 914 met inclusion criteria [663 (72.5%) patients with DC and 251 (27.5%) with DnC]. Median follow-up time was 24.3 months (range, 0.5-93.3) vs 31.7 (range, 0.5-131) in DC vs DnC, respectively (p<0.0001). Forty-six patients (5%) developed a symptomatic IH, with 25 (3.8%) vs 21 (8.4%) in the DC vs DnC group, respectively (p=0.005). This remained statistically significant on multivariate analysis for the development of IH with DC vs DnC (p=0.0098, OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.24-0.82). Nineteen patients (42.2%) presented for emergent or urgent repair and 26 (57.8%) for elective repair. The most common symptom was chronic post-prandial abdominal pain (53.4%), followed by abdominal pain with nausea ± vomiting (35.6%), acute abdominal pain ± nausea and vomiting (8.8%), and an acute abdomen (2.2%). The median time to presentation from LRYGB was 16.6 (range, 3.1-71.9) vs 33.5 months (range, 10-103) in the DC vs DnC group, respectively (p<0.001). At the time of IH repair there was no significant difference in BMI or %EWL between the two groups. All patients underwent CT scan which was consistent with IH in 26 patients (57.5%), suggestive in 7 (15.6%), showed small bowel obstruction in 4 (8.9%), and was negative in 8 (17.8%). The majority of IH repairs were performed laparoscopically (86.7%) vs open (13.3%). Intra-operatively, 71 herniation sites were identified with 34 in the DC group vs 37 in the DnC. In the DC group, there were 23 (67.6%) pseudo-Peterson’s and 11 (32.4%) meso-mesoenteric defects. In the DnC group, there were 5 (13.5%) mesocolic, 15 (40.5%) Peterson’s, 2 (5.4%) pseudo-Peterson’s, and 15 (40.5%) meso-mesenteric defects. Two patients required small bowel resection. Median OR time was 104 minutes (range, 75-180). Median length of stay was one day (range, 0.5-32). There was one mortality in a patient who presented in extremis after being hospitalized elsewhere for 3 days with the incorrect diagnosis. One patient had recurrence of internal hernia 11.5 and 14.2 months after initial hernia repair.

CONCLUSIONS: Complications of IH can be devastating, and closure of the mesenteric defects during LRYGB results in a significantly lower IH rate. Furthermore, a high index of suspicion must be maintained since symptoms may be nonspecific and imaging may be negative in nearly 20% of patients. The majority of IH repairs may be performed laparoscopically.


Session: Posters/Distinction

Program Number: P009

1,635

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals