BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is considered the least invasive surgical option for the treatment of morbid obesity. Its initial popularity has been marred by recent long-term studies showing high complication rates. We sought to examine our experience with gastric banding and factors leading to reoperation. METHODS: We reviewed retrospective data of 305 patients who underwent laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding between 2004 and 2011 at a single institution, 42 patients of whom required a reoperation, constituting 13.8%. Patients undergoing elective reoperations for port protrusion from weight loss as a purely cosmetic issue were excluded (n = 10). Patients' demographic data, weight loss, time to reoperation, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 305 patients, 42 (13.8%) required reoperations: 26 underwent band removal (8.5%) and 16 underwent port revision (5.2%). The mean weight and body mass index for all patients who underwent reoperations were 122.6 kg and 45.0 kg/m(2), respectively. The most common complication leading to band removal was gastric prolapse (n = 14, 4.6%). The most common indication for port revision was a nonfunctioning port (n = 10, 3.3%). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding was initially popularized as a minimally invasive gastric-restrictive procedure with low morbidity. Our study showed a 13.8% reoperation rate at 3 years' follow-up. Most early reoperations (<2 years) were performed for port revision, whereas later reoperations (>2 years) were likely to be performed for band removal. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is associated with high reoperation rates; therefore bariatric surgeons should carefully consider other surgical weight-loss options tailored to the needs of the individual patient that may have lower complication and reoperation rates.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is considered the least invasive surgical option for the treatment of morbid obesity. Its initial popularity has been marred by recent long-term studies showing high complication rates. We sought to examine our experience with gastric banding and factors leading to reoperation. METHODS: We reviewed retrospective data of 305 patients who underwent laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding between 2004 and 2011 at a single institution, 42 patients of whom required a reoperation, constituting 13.8%. Patients undergoing elective reoperations for port protrusion from weight loss as a purely cosmetic issue were excluded (n = 10). Patients' demographic data, weight loss, time to reoperation, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 305 patients, 42 (13.8%) required reoperations: 26 underwent band removal (8.5%) and 16 underwent port revision (5.2%). The mean weight and body mass index for all patients who underwent reoperations were 122.6 kg and 45.0 kg/m(2), respectively. The most common complication leading to band removal was gastric prolapse (n = 14, 4.6%). The most common indication for port revision was a nonfunctioning port (n = 10, 3.3%). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding was initially popularized as a minimally invasive gastric-restrictive procedure with low morbidity. Our study showed a 13.8% reoperation rate at 3 years' follow-up. Most early reoperations (<2 years) were performed for port revision, whereas later reoperations (>2 years) were likely to be performed for band removal. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is associated with high reoperation rates; therefore bariatric surgeons should carefully consider other surgical weight-loss options tailored to the needs of the individual patient that may have lower complication and reoperation rates.
Authors: Baris D Yildiz; Akin Bostanoglu; Muhittin Sonisik; Settar Bostanoglu; E Okan Hamamci; M Fatih Avsar Journal: Adv Clin Exp Med Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.727
Authors: Stephan Hjorth; Ingmar Näslund; Johanna C Andersson-Assarsson; Per-Arne Svensson; Peter Jacobson; Markku Peltonen; Lena M S Carlsson Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Jeremy R Burt; Madison R Kocher; Lauren Snider; Jeffrey Waltz; Jordan Heston Chamberlin; Gilberto J Aquino; Vincent Giovagnoli; Megan Mercer; Nicholas Feranec Journal: Visc Med Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Mehmet Sertkaya; Arif Emre; Fatih Mehmet Yazar; Ertan Bülbüloğlu Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 1.195