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