Jérôme Dargent1. 1. Polyclinique de Rillieux, Rillieux-la-Pape, France. jerome.dargent@polyclinique-rillieux.fr
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lapaparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has become a widespread method to treat morbid obesity. Long-term complications and failures require a strategy for reoperation. METHODS: 1,180 patients have been operated on from April 1995 to December 2003. 151 had reoperation for complications (12.7%) excluding access-port problems: slippage (105), erosion (22), intolerance (24). 67 patients (5.6%) had their band removed; only 5 had a switch to another procedure. Esophageal dilatation and insufficient excess weight loss (<25%) after 5 years (13.7%) should also be addressed. Two situations are described: 1) Band in place: anterior slip, dilatation, isolated insufficient weight loss. 2) Band to be removed: posterior slip, severe anterior slip (acute, with necrosis or perforation), erosion, intolerance. Four options are recognized: 1) Conservation (adjustment management) or surgical correction (anterior slip). 2) Placement of a new band: for failure of the device, accidental removal (slippage in difficult conditions), and erosion after a delay. 3) RYGBP or BPD in selected cases only. 4) Other procedures. CONCLUSION: 1) A new band can be placed if there has been a technical problem. 2) Weight control is possible, including in the case of esophageal dilatation. Reoperation for insufficient weight loss without a technical problem is not an option. Failures of VBG cannot be fairly compared with Lap-Band (R) failures because of adjustability. 3) Reoperation is not often demanded. For failure after LAGB, the future should involve less invasive bariatric procedures and nonsurgical approaches.
BACKGROUND: Lapaparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has become a widespread method to treat morbid obesity. Long-term complications and failures require a strategy for reoperation. METHODS: 1,180 patients have been operated on from April 1995 to December 2003. 151 had reoperation for complications (12.7%) excluding access-port problems: slippage (105), erosion (22), intolerance (24). 67 patients (5.6%) had their band removed; only 5 had a switch to another procedure. Esophageal dilatation and insufficient excess weight loss (<25%) after 5 years (13.7%) should also be addressed. Two situations are described: 1) Band in place: anterior slip, dilatation, isolated insufficient weight loss. 2) Band to be removed: posterior slip, severe anterior slip (acute, with necrosis or perforation), erosion, intolerance. Four options are recognized: 1) Conservation (adjustment management) or surgical correction (anterior slip). 2) Placement of a new band: for failure of the device, accidental removal (slippage in difficult conditions), and erosion after a delay. 3) RYGBP or BPD in selected cases only. 4) Other procedures. CONCLUSION: 1) A new band can be placed if there has been a technical problem. 2) Weight control is possible, including in the case of esophageal dilatation. Reoperation for insufficient weight loss without a technical problem is not an option. Failures of VBG cannot be fairly compared with Lap-Band (R) failures because of adjustability. 3) Reoperation is not often demanded. For failure after LAGB, the future should involve less invasive bariatric procedures and nonsurgical approaches.
Authors: Rishi Singhal; Catherine Bryant; Mark Kitchen; Khalid S Khan; Jon Deeks; Boliang Guo; Paul Super Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-07-31 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Richard John Egan; Simon J W Monkhouse; Hayley E Meredith; Sharon E Bates; Justin D T Morgan; Sally A Norton Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 4.129