4.6 Article

Hiatal hernia repair at the initial laparoscopic adjustable gastric band operation reduces the need for reoperation

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-007-9684-z

Keywords

bariatric; obesity; GORD/GERD (gastro-oesophageal reflux disease); hernia; complications; lap band

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Intractable reflux, either due to gastric prolapse or concentric pouch dilatation has been the most common indication for reoperation or band removal after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). We have previously found that a simple hiatal hernia repair (HHR) leads to remission of these symptoms minimizing the need for band removal. We have subsequently added crural repair/HHR at the initial operation, where indicated. In this study compare the rate of reoperation in patients who underwent LAGB alone, or with concurrent HHR. Methods A retrospective review of a prospective database of all patients undergoing LAGB was performed to determine the incidence of reoperation in the two groups. Results Between July 2001 and August of 2006, 1298 patients underwent LAGB and 520 patients underwent LAGB with concurrent HHR (LAGB/HHR). The mean initial weight and BMI were 128 kg (range, 71.1-245.7 kg) and 45.4 kg/m(2) (range, 28-75 kg/m(2)). Average follow-up for the LAGB and LAGB/HHR groups was 24.8 and 20.5 months, respectively. Rate of reoperation for HHR alone, or with band slip or concentric pouch dilatation, for LAGB and LAGB/HHR groups was 5.6% and 1.7% respectively (p < 0.001). Total reoperation rate for slip, HHR and pouch dilatation was 7.9% and 3.5%, respectively (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in rate of slip repair alone between the two groups: 2.3% and 1.7%, respectively (p < 0.44). Conclusions Adding HHR to LAGB where indicated significantly reduces reoperation rate. Every effort should be made to detect and repair HHR during placement of the band, as it will decrease future need for reoperation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available