So far I keep getting mixed information about the two procedures in terms of malabsorption. Do they both cause the same amount of malabsorption or does the MGB cause more malabsorption??

I remember my surgeon saying that life long supplementation is only needed for duodenal switch!!! And all other surgeries only need supplementation for the first couple of years only! Also read somewhere that RNY is really restrictive only. And 78% of the fat , 100% of the Protein and 100% of the carbs are still absorbed. And the huge loss of weight is only caused by restricting the calorie intake. That's why there is always a chance of regain several years later.

I HAD GASTRIC BYPASS 5 1/2 YEARS AGO AND IT WAS THE BEST DECISION I COULD HAVE MADE. I TAKE A DAILY Vitamin AND Iron PILL AND B12 ONCE A WEEK. I DIDN;T GAIN THE WEGHT BACK BECAUSE MY DOCTOR PUTS A PIG VALVE IN BETWEEN THE STOMACH AND THE INTESTINES TO PREVENT THE OPENING FROM STRETCHING OUT. THAT IS WHY A LOT OF PEOPLE REGAIN THEIR WEIGHT. MY BLOODWORK IS PERFECT AND THE ONLY DOWN SIDE IS THAT I TAKE OMEPRAZOLE DAILY TO PREVENT ULCERS. I PROBABLY ADDED AT LEAST TEN YEARS TO MY LIFE AND HAVE MUCH MORE ENERGY. MY sleep APNEA DID NOT GO AWAY EVEN AFTER I LOST THE WEIGHT SO I STILL SLEEP WITH A MASK.

There is much more data for RNY. The malabsorption is relatively minor as far as calories, but since the duodenum is bypassed, there is a need for lifelong supplementation for most people. People get deficiencies years and years out. I don't know why your surgeon said that, maybe some people are able to reduce supplements later on, but i was told I will always need to take supplements. Since the mini bypass hasn't been well studied, I don't know if it could be said definitely it causes more malabsorption (I read that it might), but from what I read the weight loss is as good or better as RNY, but variable lengths of the intestine are bypassed (2-6 feet I think). So all minis might not be the same. As far as weight loss, it is more that just calorie restriction for most of the surgeries except for band. The surgeries change hormonal regulation, and they reduce appetite and might even change the metabolic set point. The actual hormonal mechanism of weight loss isn't well defined, but some models show a hormonal pathway is necessary for the surgery to be successful. Reducing the amount of hormones produced by the body of the stomach, either by removing or bypassing it, is how RNY and VSG work. The DS has this component too. It is hard to quantify how much is what, but without the hormonal component as well as restriction, the malabsorption is probably not enough on its own.

Thanks all but I specifically need to know if the MGB is associated with more malabsorption compared to RNY??

Thanks all but I specifically need to know if the MGB is associated with more malabsorption compared to RNY??

It is a question for the surgeon, and a far as I can tell no studies have done to compare calorie absorption between the two surgeries. They both have similar efficacy though in some of the studies I looked, so at the end of the day they are both similarly effective. I personally think RNY is better studied and much for common, so I went for that. The mini wasn't a consideration.

Since the mini in technically an easier surgery, some places may choose do it.

One surgeon's opinion "In Dr. Sasse’s opinion, the Mini Gastric Bypass causes very similar changes to the digestive process and the appetite, and also similar changes to nutrient absorption as the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The technical simplicity of the Mini Gastric Bypass may offer an advantage over the RYGB, with less chance of scar tissue or opportunities for twists or blockages related to the “Y” reconstruction of the RYGB"

http://sassesurgical.com/bariatric-surgery/laparoscopic-procedures/mini-gastric-bypass/

The mini gastric bypass is definitely more malabsorptive than the RYGB. I would advise against the mini gastric bypass from my own personal experience.