Frederik Pdm Lecot1, Evert-Jan G Boerma2, Rochelle Sigterman-Nelissen2, Berry Meesters2, Sofie Fransen2, Jan Willem Greve2,3. 1. Department of Surgery, Zuyderland MC, Henri Dunantstraat 5, 6419 PC, Heerlen, The Netherlands. frederik@lecot.be. 2. Department of Surgery, Zuyderland MC, Henri Dunantstraat 5, 6419 PC, Heerlen, The Netherlands. 3. Bariatric and Abdominal Surgeon, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is rapidly becoming a deprecated bariatric procedure due to disappointing weight loss results and a high rate of band intolerance. Conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is a common revisional procedure after failed LAGB. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and risk profile of conversion to adjustable banded Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (ABRYGB). METHODS: A retrospective patient file review of all consecutive laparoscopic conversions of LAGB to ABRYGB 2008-2017. Pre/perioperative data, weight change, and long-/short-term complications were retrieved. RESULTS: Study population 98 patients. Mean BMI before revision was 40,15 kg/m2. Most revisional procedures were performed for band intolerance and/or weight regain or weight loss failure. All procedures were performed laparoscopically. During follow-up, 16 bands had to be removed due to one of the following reasons: infection, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic peptic perforation, adhesions around the anastomosis, internal hernia around the tubing, adhesions to the tubing, tubing failure, and erosion of the band. Three of those bands were replaced with a non-adjustable Silastic (Minimizer) ring. In total, issues with tubing requiring an intervention were found in 20 patients after conversion to ABRYGB. Seven revisional procedures had to be performed for symptomatic internal hernias not related to the tubing and incidental internal hernias were found in another 7 procedures. CONCLUSION: Although conversion of LAGB to ABRYGB is technically feasible, initially well-tolerated, and has good weight loss results, the number of additional procedures during follow-up is rather high, suggesting that leaving the band in place should not be advised.
OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is rapidly becoming a deprecated bariatric procedure due to disappointing weight loss results and a high rate of band intolerance. Conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is a common revisional procedure after failed LAGB. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and risk profile of conversion to adjustable banded Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (ABRYGB). METHODS: A retrospective patient file review of all consecutive laparoscopic conversions of LAGB to ABRYGB 2008-2017. Pre/perioperative data, weight change, and long-/short-term complications were retrieved. RESULTS: Study population 98 patients. Mean BMI before revision was 40,15 kg/m2. Most revisional procedures were performed for band intolerance and/or weight regain or weight loss failure. All procedures were performed laparoscopically. During follow-up, 16 bands had to be removed due to one of the following reasons: infection, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic peptic perforation, adhesions around the anastomosis, internal hernia around the tubing, adhesions to the tubing, tubing failure, and erosion of the band. Three of those bands were replaced with a non-adjustable Silastic (Minimizer) ring. In total, issues with tubing requiring an intervention were found in 20 patients after conversion to ABRYGB. Seven revisional procedures had to be performed for symptomatic internal hernias not related to the tubing and incidental internal hernias were found in another 7 procedures. CONCLUSION: Although conversion of LAGB to ABRYGB is technically feasible, initially well-tolerated, and has good weight loss results, the number of additional procedures during follow-up is rather high, suggesting that leaving the band in place should not be advised.
Authors: Ricard Corcelles; Mena Boules; Dvir Froylich; Amani Hag; Christopher R Daigle; Ali Aminian; Stacy A Brethauer; Barto Burguera; Philip R Schauer Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: E O Aarts; K Dogan; P Koehestanie; Th J Aufenacker; I M C Janssen; F J Berends Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2014-04-05 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Juan Pujol Rafols; Amr I Al Abbas; Stefanie Devriendt; Anabela Guerra; Miguel F Herrera; Jacques Himpens; Eva Pardina; Julia Peinado-Onsurbe; Almino Ramos; Rui José da Silva Ribeiro; Bassem Safadi; Hugo Sanchez-Aguilar; Claire de Vries; Bart Van Wagensveld Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2018-08-11 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Ryan M Gobble; Manish S Parikh; Matthew R Greives; Christine J Ren; George A Fielding Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 4.584