4.4 Article

Long-Term (over 13 Years) Follow-Up of Vertical Band Gastroplasty

期刊

OBESITY SURGERY
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 1808-1813

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-020-04448-w

关键词

Silastic ring vertical gastroplasty (SRVG); Vertical band gastroplasty (VBG); Bariatric surgery complications; Long-term outcomes

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Silastic ring vertical gastroplasty (SRVG) was a popular restrictive procedure 2 and 3 decades ago. However, it was associated with severe complications and a high rate of reoperation due to failure. Examination of long-term outcomes of those patients that underwent SVRG is limited. The aim of our study was to determine the long-term outcomes (over 13 years) of SRVG in our institution and to review the literature of long-term outcomes following SVRG. Methods Following IRB approval, we reviewed patients who underwent SRVG between 1996 and 2001. Weight loss parameters, preoperative comorbidities, were compared to the follow-up data. Results In total, 92 patients underwent SRVG, and 89 met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 52.4 +/- 10.6 years and body mass index (BMI) was 46.1 +/- 6.5 Kg/m(2). Preoperative comorbidities rate included diabetes mellitus (19.1%), hypertension (32.5%), hyperlipidemia (21.3%), joints disease (6.7%), mood disorders (7.8%), and dyspeptic disorders (3.3%). Mean length of follow-up was 208.5 +/- 16.8 months. Thirty-eight patients (43%) had to be reoperated due to complications and 24 (30%) had an additional bariatric surgery. Follow-up BMI was 34.2 +/- 9.8 Kg/m(2) (p < 0.001). There was no improvement in any of the comorbidities; incidence of joint disease and dyspeptic disorders were significantly higher at the follow-up (p = 0.03, p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions SRVG procedure was associated with high rates of reoperations and revisions. The majority of our patients showed poor resolution of comorbidities and even worsening of some. Our data confirms that SRVG is not suitable as a bariatric procedure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据