BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is an alternative to gastric bypass and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (GB). METHODS: From January 2004 to January 2006, 111 patients with a follow-up longer than 24 months were prospectively followed. Three treatment groups were defined. Sleeve gastrectomy as first procedure (SGFP; n = 50), sleeve gastrectomy after failure of GB (SG after GB; n = 9) and GB (n = 52). We compared morbidity, mortality, length of stay, number of procedures under general anaesthesia, excess weight loss (EWL) and quality of life. RESULTS: Mean initial body mass index (BMI) was 50.4 (SG), 50.8 (SG after GB) and 43.8 (GB; p = 0.000001). Mean operating time was 97.1 min (SGFP), 122.2 min (SG after GB) and 69.8 min (GB; p < 0.0001). The reoperation rate under general anaesthesia was 2% (SGFP), 11% (SG after GB) and 30.76% (GB; p = 0.00001).The fistula rate was 2% (SGFP), 0% (SG after GB) and 0% (GB). BMI at 24 months was 33.8 (SGFP), 35.3 (SG after GB) and 33.2 (GB; NS). EWL at 24 months was 67.4 (SGFP), 60.3 (SG after GB) and 58.6 (GB; NS). In the SGFP group and in the SG after GB group, the mean quality-of-life score was 1.1. In the GB group, the mean score was 0.95 (NS). CONCLUSIONS: Initial BMI was significantly higher in the SG group but was no longer significantly different from the BMI of the GB group at 12 and 24 months. Excess BMI loss was higher after SG than after GB. This reduction of BMI was considered to be a success for GB. Thus, results of SG should be considered as a success. Quality of life was not significantly different between the three groups. These results validated SG as first procedure or after failure of GB.
BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is an alternative to gastric bypass and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (GB). METHODS: From January 2004 to January 2006, 111 patients with a follow-up longer than 24 months were prospectively followed. Three treatment groups were defined. Sleeve gastrectomy as first procedure (SGFP; n = 50), sleeve gastrectomy after failure of GB (SG after GB; n = 9) and GB (n = 52). We compared morbidity, mortality, length of stay, number of procedures under general anaesthesia, excess weight loss (EWL) and quality of life. RESULTS: Mean initial body mass index (BMI) was 50.4 (SG), 50.8 (SG after GB) and 43.8 (GB; p = 0.000001). Mean operating time was 97.1 min (SGFP), 122.2 min (SG after GB) and 69.8 min (GB; p < 0.0001). The reoperation rate under general anaesthesia was 2% (SGFP), 11% (SG after GB) and 30.76% (GB; p = 0.00001).The fistula rate was 2% (SGFP), 0% (SG after GB) and 0% (GB). BMI at 24 months was 33.8 (SGFP), 35.3 (SG after GB) and 33.2 (GB; NS). EWL at 24 months was 67.4 (SGFP), 60.3 (SG after GB) and 58.6 (GB; NS). In the SGFP group and in the SG after GB group, the mean quality-of-life score was 1.1. In the GB group, the mean score was 0.95 (NS). CONCLUSIONS: Initial BMI was significantly higher in the SG group but was no longer significantly different from the BMI of the GB group at 12 and 24 months. Excess BMI loss was higher after SG than after GB. This reduction of BMI was considered to be a success for GB. Thus, results of SG should be considered as a success. Quality of life was not significantly different between the three groups. These results validated SG as first procedure or after failure of GB.
Authors: D Nocca; R Aggarwal; P Blanc; B Gallix; G L Di Mauro; B Millat; C Seguin des De Hons; E Deneve; J G Rodier; G Tincani; M A Pierredon; J M Fabre Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2006-11-14 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Paul Brunault; Julie Frammery; Charles Couet; Irène Delbachian; Céline Bourbao-Tournois; Martine Objois; Patricia Cosson; Christian Réveillère; Nicolas Ballon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 4.147