common channel question

I went for my check up today with my surgeon. He says I'm doing GREAT and was pleased with my progress. I was a little disappointed because I am hanging right at that 30lb mark. I'm sure it will drop in a day or two. I asked how long my common channel was and he told me 125. I know things have been posted on here about the length of the common channel but it didn't apply much to me at the time- now that I am 2 months out I want to understand a little bit more about how the length affects the amount of weight we lose and how quickly it will come off based on the length. I believe mine is close to average- am I correct? Its not too drastic but enough to create malapsorption. Still learning as I move on this journey and try to take in what I can when I reach these little milestones.
Any info you want to offer here to help me learn a little more would be awesome!
Thanks
Sharon

If I'm not mistaken, and I probably am... The length affects the time food remains and is absorbed. So the longer the channel the more calories, etc... We absorb but the upside would be the fewer vitamin deficiencies we experience. Once again I could be and probably am incorrect.


Forgot to mention mine is 100cm. I think my surgeon does a standard 100 cm...

This is one of those questions that there isn't really an answer to. Every body is different---125 cms might be optimal for you, whereas for me 90 might be best. And it's not just the common channel length---it's a combination of the lengths of all the limbs and how they relate to your original small intestine length. (This is the reasoning behind the "Hess method" of measuring the intestine and basing limb lengths accordingly.) The human small intestine can vary widely---I've seen people with as much as 8 meters and as little as 4 meters, and 'average' is 6-7 meters. Mine happened to be 690 cms, and my CC is 90 cms.

Mine was 880 cms, and my common channel is 75 cms.

My surgeon uses the Hess Method, but also takes into account male vs female, age, years of dieting, family history of obesity, etc.  So I ended up with 75.

Personally, I would have preferred a common channel of 50 cms.  I would have more malabsorbtion of vitamins than I do now, but I would get to goal.  It's a trade off.

PS. A common channel of only 50cm CAN be managed, but it's an all day job. I was working with a Hess girl, 2001, 50cm. Everything was a disaster, but after one year, all her numbers were good, and that's by my OCD standards of "good". Except the numbers related to protein. Proteins supps gave her gas, so she minimized them. I'm amazed that she raised all vitamin levels into the happy zone on orals, with protein/albumin/prealbumin in the disaster zone.

BTW, Dr. Hess is amazing. I mentioned her name and city in ?2010? and he zoned in on her right away. She is not a member here, so no, you don't know her. I told him that 50cm is a very hard come back on orals, and I know he's still kinda chewing on that.

I'm 100 cm, but with a pouch, not a sleeve. I'm a hybrid. Soon to be 19 yrs, knowing what I know now, this is the length I would choose again. I'm able to maintain my wt reasonably and am able to hold the nutrition levels I set for myself.

I see many are standardizing to the 100 cm, and other configuration I have today. Many docs have changed from the original Hess method to the more standardized 100 cm cc and 150 alimentary limb

I'm curious - I know your post is old.........but you seem to have a pretty good understanding of the limb structure.

Can you provide your thoughts on the following: do you think it's possible to maintain any level of malabsorption if you added 100cm to the above mentioned standardized method of 100cm CC and 150 alimentary limb?

generally speaking the shorter the cc the greater the weight loss and malabsorption.  the common channel has increased over the last 5-10 years.

the two separated limbs of the small intestines are rejoined to be connected at the ileum known as the common channel. This is where the food and digestive juices begin to mix and limit fat absorption, essential for good health to occur. The common channel length varies according to surgeon’s or patient's needs; malabsorption level desired, etc., the average common channel length is 100cm  The longer the common channel, the more digestion of the food occurs and more of the food, nutrients can be absorbed, with potentially less nutritional issues.

The common channel section is the only portion of the intestines that a DS patient is able to absorb complex carbohydrates, starches, and fats and nowhere else in the small intestine digestive system

added:  mine is also longer than 100 cm....

A DS patient can and does absorb complex carbs, starches and fats in the alimentary limb also. Not many fats but still some. That is why the alimentary limb and the common channel lengths together are important.  Foods start absorbing as we eat and as the food makes it way down the alimentary limb to the common channel. The biliopancreatic limb is the only place that zero nutrition is absorbed.

We also start absorbing some starches and all sugars as soon as they hit our mouth before they even get to our stomach.

Just curious, how long is your common channel? Hope I'm not being to personal.

I think mine might have just been increased to 250cm.

My obvious concern is malabsorption?