BACKGROUND: Obesity is a worldwide epidemic and surgery is the only proven long-term treatment. The two most commonly performed bariatric procedures are laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). There are advocates of both procedures but LAGB is associated with potentially high failure rates and may require conversion to an alternative procedure. METHODS: This study reports our unit results for failed LAGB converted to LRYGB and compares them to primary LRYGB patients. All patients undergoing revisional LRYGB from July 2006 to December 2011 were included in the study. Comparisons were made to patients undergoing primary LRYGB over the same time period for post-operative weight loss, complications and length of stay. RESULTS: Of the patients, 722 were analysed of which 55 underwent revisional surgery. There was no statistical difference in percentage of excess weight loss at 6 months, 1 year or 2 years following surgery between the primary and revisional surgery cohorts (54.5, 63.7, 65.2 vs 51.6, 59.5, 59.4, p = NS). There was no difference in morbidity, mortality or length of stay between the two groups. Revisional LRYGB was carried out as a single surgery in 43 (78 %) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Revisional LRYGB surgery can be carried out safely and efficiently in experienced bariatric units. Good short- and medium-term weight loss can be achieved with no increase in morbidity, mortality or length of hospital stay. This study adds weight to the argument that LRYGB is the revisional procedure of choice following failed LAGB.
BACKGROUND: Obesity is a worldwide epidemic and surgery is the only proven long-term treatment. The two most commonly performed bariatric procedures are laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). There are advocates of both procedures but LAGB is associated with potentially high failure rates and may require conversion to an alternative procedure. METHODS: This study reports our unit results for failed LAGB converted to LRYGB and compares them to primary LRYGB patients. All patients undergoing revisional LRYGB from July 2006 to December 2011 were included in the study. Comparisons were made to patients undergoing primary LRYGB over the same time period for post-operative weight loss, complications and length of stay. RESULTS: Of the patients, 722 were analysed of which 55 underwent revisional surgery. There was no statistical difference in percentage of excess weight loss at 6 months, 1 year or 2 years following surgery between the primary and revisional surgery cohorts (54.5, 63.7, 65.2 vs 51.6, 59.5, 59.4, p = NS). There was no difference in morbidity, mortality or length of stay between the two groups. Revisional LRYGB was carried out as a single surgery in 43 (78 %) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Revisional LRYGB surgery can be carried out safely and efficiently in experienced bariatric units. Good short- and medium-term weight loss can be achieved with no increase in morbidity, mortality or length of hospital stay. This study adds weight to the argument that LRYGB is the revisional procedure of choice following failed LAGB.
Authors: Lars Sjöström; Anna-Karin Lindroos; Markku Peltonen; Jarl Torgerson; Claude Bouchard; Björn Carlsson; Sven Dahlgren; Bo Larsson; Kristina Narbro; Carl David Sjöström; Marianne Sullivan; Hans Wedel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Shanu N Kothari; Eric J DeMaria; Harvey J Sugerman; John M Kellum; Jill Meador; Luke Wolfe Journal: Surgery Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 3.982
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