4.4 Article

Revision Procedures After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding: Comparison of Efficacy and Safety

Journal

OBESITY SURGERY
Volume 27, Issue 11, Pages 2861-2867

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-017-2716-4

Keywords

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; Bariatric surgery; Reoperation; Revision surgery

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was one of the commonly performed bariatric operations; however, it carries a high revision rate. The aim of the present study was to report the long-term outcomes of LAGB and compare the outcomes between the different revision procedures. All patients who underwent LAGB in a large bariatric center in Asia between May 2002 and April 2011 were included. Interval between primary LAGB to the revision operation, the reason and type of revision surgery were identified and analyzed. A total of 275 consecutive patients were included. All of the procedures were completed laparoscopically with no major complications. The percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at 10-year follow-up was 45%. In this study, 53 patients (19.3%) had revision surgery, including with 26 single anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass (R-LSAGB) (49%), 17 sleeve gastrectomy (R-LSG) (32.1%), 9 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-LRYGB) (17%), and 1 other procedure (1.9%). A major complication occurred in 6 patients (11.3%). All of the follow-up patients with revision surgeries had %EWL > 50% at the 2-year follow-up. R-LSAGB patients achieved better weight loss than those who underwent R-LSG and R-LRYGB (p = 0.001). The long-term result for weight loss after LAGB is unsatisfactory. The revision of failed LAGB to other bariatric surgeries is safe and can be performed in one stage with a low complication rate. Patients who underwent R-LSAGB had better weight loss results than the R-LSG or R-LRYGB patients.

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