Yazmin Johari1,2, Geraldine Ooi3,4, Paul Burton3,4, Cheryl Laurie3, Shourye Dwivedi4, YunFei Qiu4, Richard Chen3,4, Damien Loh3, Peter Nottle3, Wendy Brown3,4. 1. Oesophago-Gastric and Bariatric Unit, Department of General Surgery, The Alfred Hospital, Commercial Rd, Prahran, 3004, Australia. yazmin.joharihalimshah@monash.edu. 2. Centre for Obesity Research and Education (CORE), Monash University, Level 6, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Rd, Prahran, 3004, Australia. yazmin.joharihalimshah@monash.edu. 3. Oesophago-Gastric and Bariatric Unit, Department of General Surgery, The Alfred Hospital, Commercial Rd, Prahran, 3004, Australia. 4. Centre for Obesity Research and Education (CORE), Monash University, Level 6, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Rd, Prahran, 3004, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comparisons of bariatric procedures across a range of outcomes are required to better inform selection of procedures and optimally allocate health care resources. AIMS: To determine differences in outcomes between laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) across nine outcome domains. METHODS: Matched primary LSG or LAGB across age, weight and surgery date were recruited. Data were collected from a prospective database and patient-completed questionnaires. RESULTS: Patients (n = 520) were well-matched (LAGB vs. LSG; age 41.8 ± 11.2 vs. 42.7 ± 11.7 years, p = 0.37; male 32.4% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.57; baseline weight 131.2 ± 30.5 vs. 131.0 ± 31.1 kg, p = 0.94). Follow-up rate was 95% at a mean of 4.8 years. LAGB attended more follow-up visits (21 vs. 13, p < 0.05). Mean total body weight loss was 27.7 ± 11.7% vs. 19.4 ± 11.1% (LSG vs. LAGB, p < 0.001). LAGB had more complications (23.8% vs. 10.8%, p < 0.001), re-operations (89 vs. 13, p < 0.001) and readmissions (87 vs. 32, p < 0.001). However, early post-operative complications were higher post-LSG (2.6 vs. 9.2%, p = 0.007). Length of stay (LOS) was higher post-LSG compared with LAGB (5.2 ± 10.9 vs. 1.5 ± 2.2 days, p < 0.001). LSG patients reported better quality of life (SF-36 physical component score 54.7 ± 7.9 vs. 47.7 ± 10.8, p = 0.002) and satisfaction (9.2 ± 1.9 vs. 8.4 ± 1.6, p = 0.001) and less frequent regurgitation (1.2 ± 1.2 vs. 0.7 ± - 1.1, p = 0.032) and dysphagia (2.0 ± 1.3 vs. 1.3 ± 1.6, p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: This study showed high long-term follow-up rates in a large cohort of well-matched patients. Weight loss was greater with LSG. LAGB reported more re-operations and less satisfaction with the outcome. LOS was driven by patients with complications. This study has reinforced the need for comprehensive measurement of outcomes in bariatric surgery.
BACKGROUND: Comparisons of bariatric procedures across a range of outcomes are required to better inform selection of procedures and optimally allocate health care resources. AIMS: To determine differences in outcomes between laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) across nine outcome domains. METHODS: Matched primary LSG or LAGB across age, weight and surgery date were recruited. Data were collected from a prospective database and patient-completed questionnaires. RESULTS:Patients (n = 520) were well-matched (LAGB vs. LSG; age 41.8 ± 11.2 vs. 42.7 ± 11.7 years, p = 0.37; male 32.4% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.57; baseline weight 131.2 ± 30.5 vs. 131.0 ± 31.1 kg, p = 0.94). Follow-up rate was 95% at a mean of 4.8 years. LAGB attended more follow-up visits (21 vs. 13, p < 0.05). Mean total body weight loss was 27.7 ± 11.7% vs. 19.4 ± 11.1% (LSG vs. LAGB, p < 0.001). LAGB had more complications (23.8% vs. 10.8%, p < 0.001), re-operations (89 vs. 13, p < 0.001) and readmissions (87 vs. 32, p < 0.001). However, early post-operative complications were higher post-LSG (2.6 vs. 9.2%, p = 0.007). Length of stay (LOS) was higher post-LSG compared with LAGB (5.2 ± 10.9 vs. 1.5 ± 2.2 days, p < 0.001). LSG patients reported better quality of life (SF-36 physical component score 54.7 ± 7.9 vs. 47.7 ± 10.8, p = 0.002) and satisfaction (9.2 ± 1.9 vs. 8.4 ± 1.6, p = 0.001) and less frequent regurgitation (1.2 ± 1.2 vs. 0.7 ± - 1.1, p = 0.032) and dysphagia (2.0 ± 1.3 vs. 1.3 ± 1.6, p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: This study showed high long-term follow-up rates in a large cohort of well-matched patients. Weight loss was greater with LSG. LAGB reported more re-operations and less satisfaction with the outcome. LOS was driven by patients with complications. This study has reinforced the need for comprehensive measurement of outcomes in bariatric surgery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bariatric; Laparoscopic gastric band; Outcome; Public
Authors: Wendy A Brown; Paul R Burton; Margaret Anderson; Anna Korin; John B Dixon; Geoffrey Hebbard; Paul E O'Brien Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2008-04-23 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Paul R Burton; Geraldine J Ooi; Cheryl Laurie; Margaret Anderson; Katrina Parker; Eldho Paul; Geoff Hebbard; Paul E O'Brien; Wendy A Brown Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Ted D Adams; Lance E Davidson; Sheldon E Litwin; Ronette L Kolotkin; Michael J LaMonte; Robert C Pendleton; Michael B Strong; Russell Vinik; Nathan A Wanner; Paul N Hopkins; Richard E Gress; James M Walker; Tom V Cloward; R Tom Nuttall; Ahmad Hammoud; Jessica L J Greenwood; Ross D Crosby; Rodrick McKinlay; Steven C Simper; Sherman C Smith; Steven C Hunt Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Arthur M Carlin; Telal M Zeni; Wayne J English; Abdelkader A Hawasli; Jeffrey A Genaw; Kevin R Krause; Jon L Schram; Kerry L Kole; Jonathan F Finks; John D Birkmeyer; David Share; Nancy J O Birkmeyer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Anne-Sophie van Rijswijk; Nienke van Olst; Winnie Schats; Donald L van der Peet; Arnold W van de Laar Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Bianca M Leca; Uzma Khan; Jenny Abraham; Louise Halder; Emma Shuttlewood; Neha Shah; Hugh L Ellis; Simon J B Aylwin; Thomas M Barber; Vinod Menon; Harpal S Randeva; Georgios K Dimitriadis Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.129