Pawan Chansaenroj1,2,3, Lwin Aung1,4, Wei-Jei Lee5, Shu Chun Chen1, Jung-Chien Chen1, Kong-Han Ser1. 1. Department of Surgery, Min-Sheng General Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 2. Department of Surgery, Somdech Phra Pinklao (Royal Thai Naval) Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. 3. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 4. Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 5. Department of Surgery, Min-Sheng General Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan. wjlee_obessurg_tw@yahoo.com.tw.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was one of the commonly performed bariatric operations; however, it carries a high revision rate. The aim of the present study was to report the long-term outcomes of LAGB and compare the outcomes between the different revision procedures. METHODS: All patients who underwent LAGB in a large bariatric center in Asia between May 2002 and April 2011 were included. Interval between primary LAGB to the revision operation, the reason and type of revision surgery were identified and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 275 consecutive patients were included. All of the procedures were completed laparoscopically with no major complications. The percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at 10-year follow-up was 45%. In this study, 53 patients (19.3%) had revision surgery, including with 26 single anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass (R-LSAGB) (49%), 17 sleeve gastrectomy (R-LSG) (32.1%), 9 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-LRYGB) (17%), and 1 other procedure (1.9%). A major complication occurred in 6 patients (11.3%). All of the follow-up patients with revision surgeries had %EWL > 50% at the 2-year follow-up. R-LSAGB patients achieved better weight loss than those who underwent R-LSG and R-LRYGB (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term result for weight loss after LAGB is unsatisfactory. The revision of failed LAGB to other bariatric surgeries is safe and can be performed in one stage with a low complication rate. Patients who underwent R-LSAGB had better weight loss results than the R-LSG or R-LRYGB patients.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was one of the commonly performed bariatric operations; however, it carries a high revision rate. The aim of the present study was to report the long-term outcomes of LAGB and compare the outcomes between the different revision procedures. METHODS: All patients who underwent LAGB in a large bariatric center in Asia between May 2002 and April 2011 were included. Interval between primary LAGB to the revision operation, the reason and type of revision surgery were identified and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 275 consecutive patients were included. All of the procedures were completed laparoscopically with no major complications. The percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at 10-year follow-up was 45%. In this study, 53 patients (19.3%) had revision surgery, including with 26 single anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass (R-LSAGB) (49%), 17 sleeve gastrectomy (R-LSG) (32.1%), 9 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-LRYGB) (17%), and 1 other procedure (1.9%). A major complication occurred in 6 patients (11.3%). All of the follow-up patients with revision surgeries had %EWL > 50% at the 2-year follow-up. R-LSAGB patients achieved better weight loss than those who underwent R-LSG and R-LRYGB (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term result for weight loss after LAGB is unsatisfactory. The revision of failed LAGB to other bariatric surgeries is safe and can be performed in one stage with a low complication rate. Patients who underwent R-LSAGB had better weight loss results than the R-LSG or R-LRYGB patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bariatric surgery; Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; Reoperation; Revision surgery
Authors: Nikolaus P Zuegel; Reinhold A Lang; Thomas P Hüttl; Marc Gleis; Marguerite Ketfi-Jungen; Isabelle Rasquin; Martin Kox Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Cornelis Adrianus Sebastianus Berende; Jean-Paul de Zoete; Johannes Franciscus Smulders; Simon Willem Nienhuijs Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Melinda A Maggard; Lisa R Shugarman; Marika Suttorp; Margaret Maglione; Harvey J Sugerman; Harvey J Sugarman; Edward H Livingston; Ninh T Nguyen; Zhaoping Li; Walter A Mojica; Lara Hilton; Shannon Rhodes; Sally C Morton; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-04-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Edo O Aarts; Kemal Dogan; Parweez Koehestanie; Ignace M C Janssen; Frits J Berends Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Ruben Schouten; Dorothee C Wiryasaputra; Francois M H van Dielen; Wim G van Gemert; Jan Willem M Greve Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Maurizio De Luca; Giacomo Piatto; Giovanni Merola; Jacques Himpens; Jean-Marc Chevallier; Miguel-A Carbajo; Kamal Mahawar; Alberto Sartori; Nicola Clemente; Miguel Herrera; Kelvin Higa; Wendy A Brown; Scott Shikora Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Lee D Ying; Gregory A Breuer; Matthew O Hubbard; Geoffrey S Nadzam; John Hwa; Kathleen A Martin Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Maurizio De Luca; Tiffany Tie; Geraldine Ooi; Kelvin Higa; Jacques Himpens; Miguel-A Carbajo; Kamal Mahawar; Scott Shikora; Wendy A Brown Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 4.129