Originally Posted by cnvh

I'm going to have to disagree with Andrea a bit... Unless a person NEEDS to have open RNY for whatever reason (extremely high BMI, prior abdominal surgeries, etc., etc.), I think having RNY done laparscopically is a much better option-- faster healing time, less post-operative pain, lower risk of infection, less chance of hernias later on, plus more benefits I can't think of at the moment.

The procedure is the same whether it's done lap or open-- the only difference with lap is that you're not left with a great big incision afterwards, and regardless of how skilled the surgeon is, large incision = increased risk of infection. With open, you have all the additional wound care requirements, having to wear a binder, being extra-super-careful not to strain the incision site to keep it closed, and so on. With lap, you're left with 5 tiny incisions (mine were so small, none of them even required any stitches) that heal much more quickly and easily.

The way I look at it, one should probably go with the least invasive option available to them... if you're an appropriate candidate for lap RNY, I really can't think of a single good reason to go with open instead. It's not like this surgeon at Johns Hopkins is the only good WLS surgeon out there, you know? There are tons of highly-skilled surgeons who do LAP RNY's every day, and at a place as big as Johns Hopkins, I can't imagine that they don't have competent lap RNY surgeons on staff as well.