BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has previously been classified as a restrictive procedure; physically limiting meal size. Recently, the key mechanism has been hypothesized to be the induction of satiety without restriction. Effects can be controlled by modifying LAGB volume, possibly as a result of effects on gastric emptying or transit through the LAGB. METHODS: Successful LAGB patients underwent paired, double blinded, esophageal transit and gastric emptying scintigraphic studies; with the LAGB at optimal volume and near empty. A new technique allowed assessment of emptying and transit through the infra- and supraband compartments. RESULTS:Fourteen of 17 patients completed both scans (six males; mean age, 48.9 ± 11.3 years, % excess weight loss 69.0 ± 15.2). At optimal volume a delay in transit of semi-solids into the infraband compartment was observed in ten patients vs. three when the LAGB was empty, (p = 0.01). The median retention of a meal in the supraband compartment immediately after cessation of intake was: empty 2.8% (2.3-7.9) vs. optimal 3.6% (1.7-4.5), (p = 0.57). Overall gastric emptying half time (minutes) was normal at both volumes: optimal 64.2 ± 29.8 vs. empty 95.2 ± 64.1, (p = 0.14). LAGB volume did not affect satiety before the scan: optimal 4.3 ± 1.9 vs. empty 4.0 ± 2.2, (p = 0.49), or 90 min later: optimal 6.1 ± 1.9 vs. empty 5.9 ± 1.4, (p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: The optimally adjusted LAGB briefly delays semi-solid transit into the infraband stomach without physically restricting meal size. The supraband compartment is usually empty of an ingested meal 1-2 min after intake ceases and overall gastric emptying is not affected.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has previously been classified as a restrictive procedure; physically limiting meal size. Recently, the key mechanism has been hypothesized to be the induction of satiety without restriction. Effects can be controlled by modifying LAGB volume, possibly as a result of effects on gastric emptying or transit through the LAGB. METHODS: Successful LAGB patients underwent paired, double blinded, esophageal transit and gastric emptying scintigraphic studies; with the LAGB at optimal volume and near empty. A new technique allowed assessment of emptying and transit through the infra- and supraband compartments. RESULTS: Fourteen of 17 patients completed both scans (six males; mean age, 48.9 ± 11.3 years, % excess weight loss 69.0 ± 15.2). At optimal volume a delay in transit of semi-solids into the infraband compartment was observed in ten patients vs. three when the LAGB was empty, (p = 0.01). The median retention of a meal in the supraband compartment immediately after cessation of intake was: empty 2.8% (2.3-7.9) vs. optimal 3.6% (1.7-4.5), (p = 0.57). Overall gastric emptying half time (minutes) was normal at both volumes: optimal 64.2 ± 29.8 vs. empty 95.2 ± 64.1, (p = 0.14). LAGB volume did not affect satiety before the scan: optimal 4.3 ± 1.9 vs. empty 4.0 ± 2.2, (p = 0.49), or 90 min later: optimal 6.1 ± 1.9 vs. empty 5.9 ± 1.4, (p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: The optimally adjusted LAGB briefly delays semi-solid transit into the infraband stomach without physically restricting meal size. The supraband compartment is usually empty of an ingested meal 1-2 min after intake ceases and overall gastric emptying is not affected.
Authors: Andrew E Chapman; George Kiroff; Philip Game; Bruce Foster; Paul O'Brien; John Ham; Guy J Maddern Journal: Surgery Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Paul Robert Burton; Wendy A Brown; Cheryl Laurie; Anna Korin; Kenneth Yap; Melissa Richards; John Owens; Gary Crosthwaite; Geoff Hebbard; Paul E O'Brien Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2009-09-18 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Giuliano Mariani; Giuseppe Boni; Marco Barreca; Massimo Bellini; Bruno Fattori; Abedallatif AlSharif; Mariano Grosso; Cristina Stasi; Francesco Costa; Marco Anselmino; Santino Marchi; Domenico Rubello; H William Strauss Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Harry R Kissileff; Julie C Carretta; Allan Geliebter; F Xavier Pi-Sunyer Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2003-08-14 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: T Horbach; G Meyer; S Morales-Conde; I Alarcón; F Favretti; M Anselmino; G M Rovera; J Dargent; C Stroh; M Susewind; A J Torres Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Ali Ardestani; Ardalan Tangestanipoor; Malcolm K Robinson; David B Lautz; Ashley H Vernon; Ali Tavakkoli Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Paul Robert Burton; Kenneth Yap; Wendy A Brown; Cheryl Laurie; Matthew O'Donnell; Geoff Hebbard; Victor Kalff; Paul E O'Brien Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Eric J Vargas; Fateh Bazerbachi; Gerardo Calderon; Larry J Prokop; Victoria Gomez; M Hassan Murad; Andres Acosta; Michael Camilleri; Barham K Abu Dayyeh Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Jorge Pedro; Filipe Cunha; Pedro Souteiro; João Sérgio Neves; Vanessa Guerreiro; Daniela Magalhães; Rita Bettencourt-Silva; Sofia Castro Oliveira; Maria Manuel Costa; Joana Queirós; Paula Freitas; Ana Varela; Davide Carvalho Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Kirstin A Carswell; Royce P Vincent; Ajay P Belgaumkar; Roy A Sherwood; Stephanie A Amiel; Ameet G Patel; Carel W le Roux Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.129