Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 Yeah Chris.......it was a blunder of Dr Devaney and Im inclined to think it was deliberate! Dr Welker said there was no way it could have grown that much on it is own......not from 100 to 225! Guess that could be a warning for future patients to avoid Devaney as a surgeon! Judie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 Judie, Thanks so much (to you and to Joe) for posting this update! 225cm!!! Jeez...no wonder, indeed!!! > Joys surgery was a success according to Joe. Dr Welker gave her a 100cm > common channel. He discovered upon measuring it that Dr Devaney had left > Joy with a common channel of 225!!! No wonder she was having so much > trouble losing weight. Apparently, Dr Welker measured it 3 times! He also > reduced her stomach to 5 ounces from approx 10-10 1/2 ounces. Joe will > probably post more about it here later...... > shes doing well but groggy, Joe says. > > Judie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 who was Joe's Dr, does anyone remember? >From: mariak415@... >Reply-To: duodenalswitch >To: duodenalswitch >Subject: Re: Fw: Joy Frost >Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 07:28:42 -0000 > >Judie, >Thanks so much (to you and to Joe) for posting this update! > >225cm!!! Jeez...no wonder, indeed!!! > > > > > > Joys surgery was a success according to Joe. Dr Welker gave >her a 100cm > > common channel. He discovered upon measuring it that Dr >Devaney had left > > Joy with a common channel of 225!!! No wonder she was >having so much > > trouble losing weight. Apparently, Dr Welker measured it 3 >times! He also > > reduced her stomach to 5 ounces from approx 10-10 1/2 >ounces. Joe will > > probably post more about it here later...... > > shes doing well but groggy, Joe says. > > > > Judie > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 In a message dated 8/29/2001 12:17:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jhensel@... writes: > Yeah Chris.......it was a blunder of Dr Devaney and Im inclined to think it > was deliberate! Dr Welker said there was no way it could have grown that > much on it is own......not from 100 to 225! > Guess that could be a warning for future patients to avoid Devaney as a > surgeon! > > WHY would he makeit that long???? What is the point of having the surgery if he's going to not do what the norm is???? LOL ~*~ AJ ~*~ Age 37 5'8'' Post op 7/24/01 Open BPD/DS self pay - Dr Baltasar -Alcoy Spain 07/24/01 BMI 64 415.1 08/06/01 BMI 59 390.2 -24.9 lbs! 08/16/01 BMI 58 387.0 -27.9 lbs! 08/24/01 BMI 58 386.5 -28.6 lbs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 In a message dated 8/29/2001 7:21:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, donna_lee777@... writes: > How long is the common channel normally? Wow, to go > through all of the prep work and post surgery pain and > then to find out the surgeon did a big mistake like > that. So now she had to go through another surgery, > more pain and healing... It's just not right. > > Normally its usually around 100cm...sometimes as short as 50. Mine is 65cm. 225 is definitely not a number I've heard before... ~*~ AJ ~*~ Age 37 5'8'' Post op 7/24/01 Open BPD/DS self pay - Dr Baltasar -Alcoy Spain 07/24/01 BMI 64 415.1 08/06/01 BMI 59 390.2 -24.9 lbs! 08/16/01 BMI 58 387.0 -27.9 lbs! 08/24/01 BMI 58 386.5 -28.6 lbs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 In a message dated 8/29/2001 8:55:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, rowanceleste@... writes: > I don't think it was neccessarily deliberate, but it was careless at > the least. If I remember correctly, when Joy asked Dr Deviny what > her common channel length was, he did not have it recorded on the > operative report at all, but he swore it was 100 cm!! Dr Deviny does > not believe in weight loss surgery but since he's a general surgeon, > he does what the hospital tells him to do. I think it's this attitude > that caused him to basically do a half-assed job! Given his attitude, > I do not think Dr Deviny should be doing weight loss surgery. > > I hope he's paying for the mistake to be fixed..... ~*~ AJ ~*~ Age 37 5'8'' Post op 7/24/01 Open BPD/DS self pay - Dr Baltasar -Alcoy Spain 07/24/01 BMI 64 415.1 08/06/01 BMI 59 390.2 -24.9 lbs! 08/16/01 BMI 58 387.0 -27.9 lbs! 08/24/01 BMI 58 386.5 -28.6 lbs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 In a message dated 8/29/2001 10:17:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, steve-goldstein@... writes: > Distal RnY would, like the DS, be > something like 100 cm +/- also I read something somewhere that said the distal RNY was about 150cm for the common channel...they were saying it was not quite as drastic as the DS was....I'm not sure if that was just in a particular case or in general!! ~*~ AJ ~*~ Age 37 5'8'' Post op 7/24/01 Open BPD/DS self pay - Dr Baltasar -Alcoy Spain 07/24/01 BMI 64 415.1 08/06/01 BMI 59 390.2 -24.9 lbs! 08/16/01 BMI 58 387.0 -27.9 lbs! 08/24/01 BMI 58 386.5 -28.6 lbs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 In a message dated 8/29/01 12:24:33 PM Central Daylight Time, lookn2bthin@... writes: > I read something somewhere that said the distal RNY was about 150cm for the > common channel...they were saying it was not quite as drastic as the DS > was....I'm not sure if that was just in a particular case or in general!! > > ~*~ AJ ~*~ > That is another problem with the RNY. I don't think a lot of patients know what they are getting when they go into surgery. Some don't even know if it is proximal or distal, let alone whether their stomach is transected. There are variances that can make them totally different sugeries over the long run concerning supplements, diet, maintenance, etc., etc. Dawn Dr. Hess 4/27/00 267 to 165 size 22 to size 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 How long is the common channel normally? Wow, to go through all of the prep work and post surgery pain and then to find out the surgeon did a big mistake like that. So now she had to go through another surgery, more pain and healing... It's just not right. dee --- mariak415@... wrote: > Judie, > Thanks so much (to you and to Joe) for posting this > update! > > 225cm!!! Jeez...no wonder, indeed!!! > > > > > > Joys surgery was a success according to Joe. Dr > Welker gave > her a 100cm > > common channel. He discovered upon measuring it > that Dr > Devaney had left > > Joy with a common channel of 225!!! No wonder she > was > having so much > > trouble losing weight. Apparently, Dr Welker > measured it 3 > times! He also > > reduced her stomach to 5 ounces from approx 10-10 > 1/2 > ounces. Joe will > > probably post more about it here later...... > > shes doing well but groggy, Joe says. > > > > Judie > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 In a message dated 8/29/2001 11:07:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jhensel@... writes: > If Welker had > done it, none of this would have happened. > That is sooo true! I just told my friends adult son about Dr. Welker being in Eugene. He was going there anyway to look into an RNY and I said...hey..you really should research both...LOL Ok so I'm prejudice but from the things he was saying, I think he'll be happier with the DS... ~*~ AJ ~*~ Age 37 5'8'' Post op 7/24/01 Open BPD/DS self pay - Dr Baltasar -Alcoy Spain 07/24/01 BMI 64 415.1 08/06/01 BMI 59 390.2 -24.9 lbs! 08/16/01 BMI 58 387.0 -27.9 lbs! 08/24/01 BMI 58 386.5 -28.6 lbs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 In a message dated 8/29/2001 11:09:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jhensel@... writes: > I hope he's paying for the mistake to be fixed>>> > > sounds like a good reason for a lawsuit? > I wonder what happens in situations like this. I mean...Joy went in with the knowledge of exactly what she wanted. She had conferred with Dr. Welker, knew her goals and the things the surgery does and does not do. She allowed the surgery with the idea that her wishes would be carried out and now she's recovering again, with added costs, traveling, and just the pain and agony these last months by not understanding why she wasn't losing...probably feeling like a failure...only to find out...her common channel was over 2 x's the requested and normal length. I would think the hospital/surgeon should be picking up the tab...The horrible part is no one can really make this up to her... I hope they do the right thing...it would be nice. ~*~ AJ ~*~ Age 37 5'8'' Post op 7/24/01 Open BPD/DS self pay - Dr Baltasar -Alcoy Spain 07/24/01 BMI 64 415.1 08/06/01 BMI 59 390.2 -24.9 lbs! 08/16/01 BMI 58 387.0 -27.9 lbs! 08/24/01 BMI 58 386.5 -28.6 lbs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 Wow--what a goof-- DId she have the original one done open or lap? It is easy to get lost in all the bowels--I can't imagine this being deliberate--but really a big goof--related to inexperience. Poor Joy--she must hae been beating herself up for so long--I'm so glad her doc didn't make her wait till the 18 months were up. Is'nt there a a way to know post op short of cutting you open how long everything is? I think I still would have had him do a 75cm cc. Hope that her recovery is super quick this time! Pammi _________________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 Steve, Would you say 100cm would be more " proximal " like with the RNY? Judie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 In a message dated 8/29/01 1:14:20 PM, duodenalswitch writes: << Normally its usually around 100cm...sometimes as short as 50. Mine is 65cm. 225 is definitely not a number I've heard before... >> I've heard of 225 cm being referred to the ENTIRE alimentary limb, 100 of that (or so) being the 'common channel'. I am extremely curious as to whether this was what was being referred to (the entire alimentary limb) not just the common channel...sometimes the terminology can get confusing. If it is ONLY the common channel, than that length is ridiculous. I don't know of anyone who would have that long of a common channel since it defeats the entire DS experience! Now, if Joy had the 100 cm common channel like Dr. Deveny stated, then it would be that her 225 cm of alimentary limb that he was referring to.... I think that my alimentary limb is either 225 or 250 and 100 cm of that is my common channel (at least that's how I understood it -- Not 250 alimentary + 100 cm common channel). all the best, lap ds with gallbladder removal January 25, 2001 Dr. Gagner/Mt. Sinai/NYC seven months post-op and still feelin' fabu! preop: 307 lbs/bmi 45 now: 224 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 In a message dated 08/29/2001 12:59:51 PM Central Daylight Time, chull1@... writes: > Some > suregons still prefer closer to 75cm, and many will scale the common > channel length based on the total measured length of your intestine. > > Dr. Hess does this. That is why my common channel is 50 cm. My total small intestine length was only about 600 cm; therefore, he felt my small intestine must be quite efficient. Therefore, he made mine common channel 50 cm. My alimentary limb is 250 cm. No problems with nutrition, diarrhea, or gas either. Dawn----South suburban chicago area Dr. Hess, Bowling Green, OH BPD/DS 4/27/00 www.duodenalswitch.com 267 to 165 5' 4 " size 22 to size 10 have made size goal no more high blood pressure, sore feet, or dieting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 At 9:37 AM -0700 8/29/01, Judie Hensel wrote: >Steve, >Would you say 100cm would be more " proximal " Yes. but . . . >like with the RNY? Not like the proximal RNY at all. Proximal RNY, AFAIK, keeps just about all of the small intestine. Medial RNY connects somewhere in the middle of the small intestine. Distal RnY would, like the DS, be something like 100 cm +/- also. AFAIK (as far as I know). --Steve -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 WHy on earth did he operate on her? What politics came into play? I think it whoud be the patient's choice not hospital politics. WHat kind of nuts do they have running that hopsital? Pammi _________________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 Thank you for your reply, Steve, but I think I worded this wrong... what I meant was how long is it before the WLS? dee --- Steve Goldstein wrote: > At 7:19 AM -0700 8/29/01, Dee wrote: > >How long is the common channel normally? > > from 50 to 100 cm. Most common seems to be 100 cm. > Shorter means > more weight loss and increased need to supplement > and monitor blood > for calcium, protein, etc. --Steve > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 Dee, Prior to our surgery our common channel is essentially our entire small intestine. This is typically about 750cm, but it varies significantly. To be exact, prior to surgery a small part of the duodenum is above the point where bile is injected, so the length would be maybe 15cm less then the total length of the intestine. One modification of what Steve said: protien absorption is determined not only by the common channel, but by the total length of the alimentary channel (the part where food passes through). It is fat and startch absorption that are limited to the common channel. Shorter common channels lead to more problems with diaharreha, so many have moved from Scopinaro's original 50cm to 100cm or so. The longest common channel that I have read about (other than this one case) was 125cm (Gagner), with 100cm being quite common. Some suregons still prefer closer to 75cm, and many will scale the common channel length based on the total measured length of your intestine. Hull > > >How long is the common channel normally? > > > > from 50 to 100 cm. Most common seems to be 100 cm. > > Shorter means > > more weight loss and increased need to supplement > > and monitor blood > > for calcium, protein, etc. --Steve > > -- > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 AJ, Daveney is not a bariatric surgeon and doesnt like doing them but does what he is told by higer ups.....(Im guessing) Maybe he didnt know what he was doing! Remember, Welker was to have done that surgery for Joy but at the last minute they pulled him off and put Daveney in charge! If Welker had done it, none of this would have happened. Judie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 I hope he's paying for the mistake to be fixed>>> sounds like a good reason for a lawsuit? Jude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 Distal RnY would, like the DS, be something like 100 cm +/- also. AFAIK (as far as I know).>> gotcha Steve! Judie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 At 1:22 PM -0400 8/29/01, lookn2bthin@... wrote: >In a message dated 8/29/2001 10:17:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, >steve-goldstein@... writes: > > >> Distal RnY would, like the DS, be >> something like 100 cm +/- also > >I read something somewhere that said the distal RNY was about 150cm for the >common channel...they were saying it was not quite as drastic as the DS >was....I'm not sure if that was just in a particular case or in general!! Could be, AJ. I am no expert on this. --Steve -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 Some don't even know if it is proximal or distal, let alone whether their stomach is transected.>>> right, Dawn! I know of one RNYer whom I have already met who had her stomach removed rather than transected! Now that is not the norm I gather with the RNY but with her, he made her pouch and threw away the rest of the stomach! Then did the distal part...... Judie Re: Re: Fw: Joy Frost > In a message dated 8/29/01 12:24:33 PM Central Daylight Time, > lookn2bthin@... writes: > > > > I read something somewhere that said the distal RNY was about 150cm for the > > common channel...they were saying it was not quite as drastic as the DS > > was....I'm not sure if that was just in a particular case or in general!! > > > > ~*~ AJ ~*~ > > > > That is another problem with the RNY. I don't think a lot of patients know > what they are getting when they go into surgery. Some don't even know if it > is proximal or distal, let alone whether their stomach is transected. There > are variances that can make them totally different sugeries over the long run > concerning supplements, diet, maintenance, etc., etc. > > Dawn > Dr. Hess > 4/27/00 > 267 to 165 > size 22 to size 10 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2001 Report Share Posted August 29, 2001 AJ, Indeed the distal RNY needs 150cm because of the more severe restriction of the gastric pouch. A group of patients were studied with a 50cm common-channel and the RNY and the malnutriton side effects were severe. Since are stomachs are bigger with the DS (and stretch more) we need less than 150cm. The largest published length is 125cm, though the vast majority are in the 75-100cm range (50cm being the smallest and original length). I do think there is a good lawsuit here, though not a good as the anonyous post a couple of days ago (the one wired up so bad that she almost died). Hull > I read something somewhere that said the distal RNY was about 150cm for the common channel...> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.