BACKGROUND: Preoperative evaluation for bariatric surgery is complex. Our investigation focused on the necessity for upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy as a routine procedure before performing gastric banding. METHODS: A consecutive series of 145 patients underwent laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Gastroscopy was performed routinely before LAGB. All patients were interviewed before gastroscopy regarding gastroesophageal symptoms. Gastroscopic findings and the results of the interview were blinded and set in comparison. Furthermore, we analyzed whether upper GI symptoms, BMI, age or gender were predictive parameters for pathological findings on gastroscopy. Small hiatal hernia was not considered a clinically relevant finding. RESULTS: Gastroscopy yielded abnormal findings in only 15 patients (10%). There were 8 patients with hiatal hernia, 4 patients with esophagitis, 1 gastric ulcer, 1 erosive gastritis, and 1 gastric polyp. Abnormal findings on gastroscopy did not correlate with age, BMI, or gender. The 18 patients who reported gastroesophageal symptoms were more likely to have abnormal gastroscopic findings (P<0.001). Gastroesophageal symptoms had a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 98% in the prediction of a GI abnormality. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that it may not be necessary to continue performing gastroscopy in all patients preparing for gastric banding. The data collected support the policy of a selective use of gastroscopy, only focusing on patients suffering from gastroesophageal symptoms. By following this strategy, the rate of preoperative gastroscopies can be reduced safely by 80%.
BACKGROUND: Preoperative evaluation for bariatric surgery is complex. Our investigation focused on the necessity for upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy as a routine procedure before performing gastric banding. METHODS: A consecutive series of 145 patients underwent laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Gastroscopy was performed routinely before LAGB. All patients were interviewed before gastroscopy regarding gastroesophageal symptoms. Gastroscopic findings and the results of the interview were blinded and set in comparison. Furthermore, we analyzed whether upper GI symptoms, BMI, age or gender were predictive parameters for pathological findings on gastroscopy. Small hiatal hernia was not considered a clinically relevant finding. RESULTS: Gastroscopy yielded abnormal findings in only 15 patients (10%). There were 8 patients with hiatal hernia, 4 patients with esophagitis, 1 gastric ulcer, 1 erosive gastritis, and 1 gastric polyp. Abnormal findings on gastroscopy did not correlate with age, BMI, or gender. The 18 patients who reported gastroesophageal symptoms were more likely to have abnormal gastroscopic findings (P<0.001). Gastroesophageal symptoms had a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 98% in the prediction of a GI abnormality. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that it may not be necessary to continue performing gastroscopy in all patients preparing for gastric banding. The data collected support the policy of a selective use of gastroscopy, only focusing on patients suffering from gastroesophageal symptoms. By following this strategy, the rate of preoperative gastroscopies can be reduced safely by 80%.