4.6 Article

Early US outcomes of laparoscopic gastric bypass versus laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding for morbid obesity

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-005-0243-1

关键词

laparoscopic gastric bypass; laparoscopic gastric banding; morbid obesity; percentage excess weight loss

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGBP) is the gold standard operation for long-term weight control in the United States. Laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding (LASGB) is the preferred operative method for morbid obesity worldwide. Limited data are available comparing the two procedure in the United States. This study compares weight loss, complications, and early outcome of comorbidity resolution in patients who underwent LGBP versus LASGB. A review of prospectively collected data was performed on 392 patients undergoing primary LGBP (n = 232) and LASGB (n = 160) procedures between February 2001 and July 2004. Differences in percentage excess weight lost (%EWL) at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postop, improvement or resolution of comorbidities, and complications across procedure types were evaluated. Mean initial body mass index between groups was not significantly different (LGBP 47.2 vs LASGB 47.1, p < 0.53). There were significant differences in age, gender, and self-reported sweet-eating behavior between operative groups. There was a significantly greater %EWL in patients who underwent LGBP compared to patients of the LASGB groups 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after surgery. There were no significant differences in resolution or improvement of comorbidities between the groups. Although LGBP patients experienced more complications compared to LASGB patients (5.6 vs 4.3%, respectively; p < 0.56), this did not reach statistical significance. Early after surgery, LGBP patients lose more weight than LASGB patients but have similar improvements in comorbidities. Further follow-up is needed to determine the relative long-term efficacy of these procedures.

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

4.6
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