Question:
Transected verses not Transected...that is the question..

I've read where some say that being transected is "the only way to go". Why is this and how many surgeries are done both ways? What are the success rates or is there a difference? Does it really matter? Will the results be the same as far as weightloss goes or is it more of a possible chance of the staple line disrupting thing only? What about those who have had the stomach stapled and of those who have had it stapled and sutured? Are just staples ok...etc. Thanks!    — Natalie M. (posted on November 14, 2002)

November 14, 2002
I'm transected. My surgeon decided to do this because it eliminates the possibility of a staple line disruption (and its resulting weight gain and need for a revision) down the road. The only drawback that I am aware of is that there is a higher risk of leaks immediately post-op. Keep in mind that this risk is still extremely small.
   — ediecat

November 14, 2002
Have you asked your surgeon these questions? these seem like very good questions to pose to your surgeon. I've been told transected is better as there is some evidence that after some time, perhaps years later, a non-transected person can develop a staple line disruption and have to have a revision. I doubt that there is any difference in the weight loss between the 2. There are some doctors that do not do transections, though why I'm not sure.
   — Cindy R.

November 14, 2002
I had both. Stapled & sewn, then transected. With the original (which lasted 5 yrs), I still had acid leaking upward into the pouch. Once cut free, that old stomach could not get to me again. Pouch is very happy now. No contest. Given a choice, I'd have transected the first time. As it was, stapled was a good First Surgery, but not the last.
   — vitalady