4.4 Review

A 12-Month Review of Revisional Single Anastomosis Gastric Bypass for Complicated Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding for Body Mass Index over 35

Journal

OBESITY SURGERY
Volume 27, Issue 11, Pages 3048-3054

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-017-2887-z

Keywords

Gastric bypass; Failed gastric banding; Revisional bariatric surgery; Weight loss 12 months; Single anastomosis gastric bypass (SAGB); Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB)

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In many countries, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was previously the most commonly performed bariatric procedure due to its operative safety and early efficacy. This procedure is now superseded because of doubtful long-term results and late complications. Many people eventually required revisional bariatric surgery such as conversion to single anastomosis gastric bypass (SAGB). This study aims to assess the safety and durability of single-stage conversion from LAGB to SAGB in patients who are intolerant to LAGB and who also fail to lose weight, or re-gain weight. Seventy-four patients with BMI > 35 kg m(-2) were selected from a prospective bariatric database between July 2012 and December 2015 for revisional laparoscopic SAGB surgery and were followed up at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months after their operation. The mean BMI at 6 weeks, then 3, 6 and 12 months were 41.6 +/- 7.66, 38.8 +/- 7.54, 35.4 +/- 7.10 and 33.2 +/- 7.34 kg m(-2), respectively. The mean percentage EWL at 6 weeks then 3, 6 and 12 months were 21.0 +/- 9.12, 37.8 +/- 12.5, 55.1 +/- 15.8 and 67.0 +/- 19.6%, respectively. Postoperative follow-up at these times were 97, 85, 69 and 46%, respectively. Early (< 30 day) morbidity was 20.3% with major complications of CD grade 3a or more of 13.5%. This study demonstrates that single-stage revisional SAGB after a failed LAGB achieved good short-term weight loss and low 30-day morbidity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available