4.4 Article

Selecting the optimal patient for LAP-BAND placement

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 184, Issue 6B, Pages 17S-20S

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9610(02)01174-1

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Optimal patient selection for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding with the LAP-BAND (INAMED Health, Santa Barbara, CA) enables maximization of results for patients most suited to the procedure and avoidance of unsatisfactory outcomes for inappropriate candidates. We have investigated potential predictors of outcomes in our patients to look for associations with weight loss. We have also reviewed published data for additional predictors. This analysis has revealed a number of conditions associated with a significantly lower percent excess weight loss (%EWL) than experienced in the overall group. These include increasing age, increasing body mass index (BMI), hyperinsulinemia, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and polycystic ovary syndrome. There was also less weight loss if the SF-36 quality-of-life measure showed a poor physical activity score, high pain score, or poor general health score. However, in all these conditions, the effect was small in comparison with the benefits achieved by these patients, and was judged insufficient to preclude this approach to treatment of their obesity. A number of conditions were found to have no relation to weight loss after LAP-BAND placement. These included sex, presence of mental illness, most comorbidities except those linked to insulin resistance, previous bariatric surgery, and sweet-eating behavior. The value of psychologic assessment to predict outcomes could not be established. The superobese (BMI >50) achieved a lower %EWL at I year after LAP-BAND placement compared with those with BMI <50, but there were no differences at the 2-, 3-, and 4-year follow-ups. (C) 2002 Excerpta Medica Inc. All rights reserved.

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