4.4 Article

Revision of failed primary adjustable gastric banding to mini-gastric bypass: results in 48 consecutive patients

期刊

UPDATES IN SURGERY
卷 67, 期 4, 页码 433-437

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s13304-015-0335-y

关键词

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass; Obesity; Revisional surgery; Bariatric surgery

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been found to be a generally successful weight loss operation, many patients require revision for weight regain, mechanical complications or intolerance to restriction. We report our experience with laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (LMGB) as a revisional procedure for failed primary LAGB. From June 2007 to November 2012, 48 patients, who had undergone LAGB, underwent revisional surgery to LMGB. Patient demographics, reasons for band removal, interval between removal and LMGB, operative times, complications, change in comorbidities, and weight loss were collected. The revisions to a mini-gastric bypass (MGB) were completed laparoscopically in all cases except in four, when the MGB was deferred because of gastric tube damage. Mean age was 38 years (range 20-59) and BMI was 43.4 +/- A 4.2 kg/m(2); 82 % of patients were females. Revision was performed after a mean of 28.6 months. The mean hospital stay was 3.25 days. Within 60 days of the MGB, mortality and morbidity were nil. We observed a significant difference in mean BMI after 6 months' follow-up (P < 0.001). Diabetes remission was observed in 88 % of patients, apnea remission in 66 %, and hypertension remission in 66 % after LMGB (p < 0.001). Moreover, four patients with GERD were cured. All LAGB patients had positive outcomes after the conversion to MGB, with a mean gain of 1.7 points in the bariatric analysis and reporting outcome system questionnaire. Our results suggested that LMGB is a safe, feasible, effective and easy-to-perform revisional procedure for failed LAGB.

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