Obesity surgery · 2012
Revision of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: success or failure?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vijgen G H E J, Schouten R, Pelzers L, Greve J W, van Helden S H, Bouvy N D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is a safe and frequently performed bariatric procedure. Unfortunately, re-operations are often necessary. Reports on the success of revisional procedures are scarce and show variable results, either supporting or declining the idea of revising LAGB. This study describes a large cohort of re-operations after failed LAGB to determine the success of revision.
METHODS: By use of a prospective cohort, all LAGB revisions performed between 1996 and 2008 were identified. From 301 primary LAGB procedures in our centre, 43 patients (14.3%) required a band revision. In addition, 51 patients were referred from other centres. Our analysis included in total 94 patients with a mean follow-up period of 38 months after revision.
RESULTS: Revision was mainly necessary due to anterior slippage (46%) and symmetrical pouch dilatation (36%), which could be resolved by replacing (70%) or refixating the band (27%). Weight loss significantly increased after revision (excess BMI loss (EBMIL), 37.2 ± 36.3% versus 47.5 ± 30.4%, P < 0.05). After revision, 23 patients (24%) needed a second re-operation. Patients converted to other procedures (16%) during the second re-operation showed larger weight loss than the revised group (EBMIL, 64.3 ± 28.1% versus 44.3 ± 28.7%, P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: We report on a large cohort of LAGB revisions with 38 months of follow-up. Revision of failed LAGB by either refixation or replacement of the band is successful and further increases weight loss.
METHODS: By use of a prospective cohort, all LAGB revisions performed between 1996 and 2008 were identified. From 301 primary LAGB procedures in our centre, 43 patients (14.3%) required a band revision. In addition, 51 patients were referred from other centres. Our analysis included in total 94 patients with a mean follow-up period of 38 months after revision.
RESULTS: Revision was mainly necessary due to anterior slippage (46%) and symmetrical pouch dilatation (36%), which could be resolved by replacing (70%) or refixating the band (27%). Weight loss significantly increased after revision (excess BMI loss (EBMIL), 37.2 ± 36.3% versus 47.5 ± 30.4%, P < 0.05). After revision, 23 patients (24%) needed a second re-operation. Patients converted to other procedures (16%) during the second re-operation showed larger weight loss than the revised group (EBMIL, 64.3 ± 28.1% versus 44.3 ± 28.7%, P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: We report on a large cohort of LAGB revisions with 38 months of follow-up. Revision of failed LAGB by either refixation or replacement of the band is successful and further increases weight loss.