GOAL: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is performed in certain circumstances after failure of gastric banding. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of first-line gastric banding on the morbidity associated with secondary LSG for obesity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The case records of 102 consecutive patients undergoing LSG were studied retrospectively. The technique of LSG was standardized. Two groups were compared: one with patients having undergone LSG after first-line gastric banding (n = 31) and the second, with patients having undergone first-line LSG (n = 71). Endpoints were overall morbidity and intra/postoperative complications including gastric leaks consecutive to staple line disruption as well as other septic or hemorrhagic complications. Multivariable analysis was performed to detect independent risk factors for morbidity. RESULTS: Overall morbidity was significantly higher in patients having undergone LSG after first-line gastric banding compared with those undergoing first-line LSG (32.2% vs. 7%, P = 0.002). Gastric leaks secondary to staple line disruption also occurred statistically significantly more often in patients with first-line gastric banding (16.1% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.043). Waiting 6 months between gastric band removal and performing LSG did not prevent the increased morbidity compared with first-line LSG. Multivariable analysis revealed that among the factors analyzed (age, gender, comorbidity, body mass index, surgeon, first-line gastric banding), the only independent risk factor for staple line disruption was first-line gastric banding with an odds ratio = 6.6 (95% confidence interval = [1.2-36.3]). CONCLUSION: Undergoing first-line gastric banding increases the risk of complications after secondary LSG. We recommend that patients who undergo LSG after a first-line gastric banding should be warned of the increased risks of morbidity or, alternatively, that LSG be performed preferentially as the initial procedure.
GOAL: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is performed in certain circumstances after failure of gastric banding. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of first-line gastric banding on the morbidity associated with secondary LSG for obesity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The case records of 102 consecutive patients undergoing LSG were studied retrospectively. The technique of LSG was standardized. Two groups were compared: one with patients having undergone LSG after first-line gastric banding (n = 31) and the second, with patients having undergone first-line LSG (n = 71). Endpoints were overall morbidity and intra/postoperative complications including gastric leaks consecutive to staple line disruption as well as other septic or hemorrhagic complications. Multivariable analysis was performed to detect independent risk factors for morbidity. RESULTS: Overall morbidity was significantly higher in patients having undergone LSG after first-line gastric banding compared with those undergoing first-line LSG (32.2% vs. 7%, P = 0.002). Gastric leaks secondary to staple line disruption also occurred statistically significantly more often in patients with first-line gastric banding (16.1% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.043). Waiting 6 months between gastric band removal and performing LSG did not prevent the increased morbidity compared with first-line LSG. Multivariable analysis revealed that among the factors analyzed (age, gender, comorbidity, body mass index, surgeon, first-line gastric banding), the only independent risk factor for staple line disruption was first-line gastric banding with an odds ratio = 6.6 (95% confidence interval = [1.2-36.3]). CONCLUSION: Undergoing first-line gastric banding increases the risk of complications after secondary LSG. We recommend that patients who undergo LSG after a first-line gastric banding should be warned of the increased risks of morbidity or, alternatively, that LSG be performed preferentially as the initial procedure.
Authors: Jerry T Dang; Noah J Switzer; Jeremy Wu; Richdeep S Gill; Xinzhe Shi; Jérémie Thereaux; Daniel W Birch; Christopher de Gara; Shahzeer Karmali Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Kamal K Mahawar; Yitka Graham; William R J Carr; Neil Jennings; Norbert Schroeder; Shlok Balupuri; Peter K Small Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.129