BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic gastric banding (LAGB) is the most popular surgical procedure for morbid obesity in Europe. Long-term complications like slippage of the band or pouch dilatation are well known and lead to reoperations in a substantial number of patients. In this study, results and follow-ups of patients with reoperations after gastric banding were analyzed. METHODS: Between May 1997 and June 2006, 172 patients were treated with LAGB for morbid obesity. 41 of these patients underwent one or more band-related reoperations (female symbol = 32, male symbol = 9). Causes for and type of reoperation were analyzed. Weight loss and comorbidities were compared for different types of reoperations. RESULTS: There were no deaths following the reoperations. Band replacement (n = 18), band repositioning (n = 7), conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG, n = 2) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP, n = 2) or band removal without any further substitution (n = 12) were performed as first reoperation. Seven patients had a second reoperation: RYGBP (n = 3), SG (n = 1), or band removal (n = 3). Median follow-up since reoperation was 56 months (range 7-113). Excess weight loss (EBWL%) of patients was 59.4% after RYGBP (n = 5), 45.1% after re-banding (n = 18), and 33.4% after SG (n = 2). Comorbidities were further reduced or even resolved after reoperation. Patients whose band was removed without subsequent bariatric procedures lost significantly less weight (n = 13, EBWL% 23.4) than patients with band replacement (n = 18, EBWL% 46.4, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic reoperation after LAGB is safe and feasible. Reoperation leads to further decrease of BMI and obesity-related comorbidities. Band replacement is a good option for patients with good weight loss after initial LAGB. Alternative procedures, preferably RYGBP, are required for cases of band failure. Overall, RYGBP appears to be the most effective option to induce further weight loss.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic gastric banding (LAGB) is the most popular surgical procedure for morbid obesity in Europe. Long-term complications like slippage of the band or pouch dilatation are well known and lead to reoperations in a substantial number of patients. In this study, results and follow-ups of patients with reoperations after gastric banding were analyzed. METHODS: Between May 1997 and June 2006, 172 patients were treated with LAGB for morbid obesity. 41 of these patients underwent one or more band-related reoperations (female symbol = 32, male symbol = 9). Causes for and type of reoperation were analyzed. Weight loss and comorbidities were compared for different types of reoperations. RESULTS: There were no deaths following the reoperations. Band replacement (n = 18), band repositioning (n = 7), conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG, n = 2) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP, n = 2) or band removal without any further substitution (n = 12) were performed as first reoperation. Seven patients had a second reoperation: RYGBP (n = 3), SG (n = 1), or band removal (n = 3). Median follow-up since reoperation was 56 months (range 7-113). Excess weight loss (EBWL%) of patients was 59.4% after RYGBP (n = 5), 45.1% after re-banding (n = 18), and 33.4% after SG (n = 2). Comorbidities were further reduced or even resolved after reoperation. Patients whose band was removed without subsequent bariatric procedures lost significantly less weight (n = 13, EBWL% 23.4) than patients with band replacement (n = 18, EBWL% 46.4, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic reoperation after LAGB is safe and feasible. Reoperation leads to further decrease of BMI and obesity-related comorbidities. Band replacement is a good option for patients with good weight loss after initial LAGB. Alternative procedures, preferably RYGBP, are required for cases of band failure. Overall, RYGBP appears to be the most effective option to induce further weight loss.
Authors: Wim Ceelen; Jean Walder; Anne Cardon; Katrien Van Renterghem; Uwe Hesse; Mohamed El Malt; Piet Pattyn Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Yves Van Nieuwenhove; Wim Ceelen; Katrien Van Renterghem; Dirk Van de Putte; Tom Henckens; Piet Pattyn Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.129
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
Authors: Antonio Iannelli; Anne Sophie Schneck; Emila Ragot; Arnaud Liagre; Yves Anduze; Simon Msika; Jean Gugenheim Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2009-06-27 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: A Schäfer; Philipp Gehwolf; J Umlauft; T Dziodzio; M Biebl; A Perathoner; F Cakar-Beck; H Wykypiel Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.129