Cargando…

Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Revisional Procedure Following Adjustable Gastric Banding: Variations in Outcomes Based on Indication

BACKGROUND: Significant controversy exists regarding the indications and outcomes after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) conversions to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). AIM: To comprehensively determine the long-term outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure after...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wickremasinghe, Anagi, Leang, Yit, Johari, Yazmin, Chana, Prem, Alderuccio, Megan, Shaw, Kalai, Laurie, Cheryl, Nottle, Peter, Brown, Wendy, Burton, Paul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10687173/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37847457
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11695-023-06886-8
_version_ 1785151925659893760
author Wickremasinghe, Anagi
Leang, Yit
Johari, Yazmin
Chana, Prem
Alderuccio, Megan
Shaw, Kalai
Laurie, Cheryl
Nottle, Peter
Brown, Wendy
Burton, Paul
author_facet Wickremasinghe, Anagi
Leang, Yit
Johari, Yazmin
Chana, Prem
Alderuccio, Megan
Shaw, Kalai
Laurie, Cheryl
Nottle, Peter
Brown, Wendy
Burton, Paul
author_sort Wickremasinghe, Anagi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Significant controversy exists regarding the indications and outcomes after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) conversions to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). AIM: To comprehensively determine the long-term outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure after LAGB across a range of measures and determine predictors of outcomes. METHODS: Six hundred revision LSG (RLSG) and 1200 controls (primary LSG (PLSG)) were included. Patient demographics, complications, follow-up, and patient-completed questionnaires were collected. RESULTS: RLSG vs controls; females 87% vs 78.8%, age 45 ± 19.4 vs 40.6 ± 10.6 years, p = 0.561; baseline weight 119.7 ± 26.2 vs 120.6 ± 26.5 kg p = 0.961)(.) Follow-up was 87% vs 89.3%. Weight loss in RLSG at 5 years, 22.9% vs 29.6% TBWL, p = 0.001, 10 years: 19.5% vs 27% TBWL, p = 0.001. RLSG had more complications (4.8 vs 2.0% RR 2.4, p = 0.001), re-admissions (4.3 vs 2.4% RR 1.8, p = 0.012), staple line leaks (2.5 vs 0.9%, p = 0.003). Eroded bands and baseline weight were independent predictors of complications after RLSG. Long-term re-operation rate was 7.3% for RLSG compared to 3.2% in controls. Severe oesophageal dysmotility predicted poor weight loss. RLSG reported lower quality of life scores (SF-12 physical component scores 75.9 vs 88%, p = 0.001), satisfaction (69 vs 93%, p = 0.001) and more frequent regurgitation (58% vs 42%, p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: RLSG provides long-term weight loss, although peri-operative complications are significantly elevated compared to PLSG. Longer-term re-operation rates are elevated compared to PLSG. Four variables predicted worse outcomes: eroded band, multiple prior bands, severe oesophageal dysmotility and elevated baseline weight. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11695-023-06886-8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10687173
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106871732023-12-01 Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Revisional Procedure Following Adjustable Gastric Banding: Variations in Outcomes Based on Indication Wickremasinghe, Anagi Leang, Yit Johari, Yazmin Chana, Prem Alderuccio, Megan Shaw, Kalai Laurie, Cheryl Nottle, Peter Brown, Wendy Burton, Paul Obes Surg Original Contributions BACKGROUND: Significant controversy exists regarding the indications and outcomes after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) conversions to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). AIM: To comprehensively determine the long-term outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure after LAGB across a range of measures and determine predictors of outcomes. METHODS: Six hundred revision LSG (RLSG) and 1200 controls (primary LSG (PLSG)) were included. Patient demographics, complications, follow-up, and patient-completed questionnaires were collected. RESULTS: RLSG vs controls; females 87% vs 78.8%, age 45 ± 19.4 vs 40.6 ± 10.6 years, p = 0.561; baseline weight 119.7 ± 26.2 vs 120.6 ± 26.5 kg p = 0.961)(.) Follow-up was 87% vs 89.3%. Weight loss in RLSG at 5 years, 22.9% vs 29.6% TBWL, p = 0.001, 10 years: 19.5% vs 27% TBWL, p = 0.001. RLSG had more complications (4.8 vs 2.0% RR 2.4, p = 0.001), re-admissions (4.3 vs 2.4% RR 1.8, p = 0.012), staple line leaks (2.5 vs 0.9%, p = 0.003). Eroded bands and baseline weight were independent predictors of complications after RLSG. Long-term re-operation rate was 7.3% for RLSG compared to 3.2% in controls. Severe oesophageal dysmotility predicted poor weight loss. RLSG reported lower quality of life scores (SF-12 physical component scores 75.9 vs 88%, p = 0.001), satisfaction (69 vs 93%, p = 0.001) and more frequent regurgitation (58% vs 42%, p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: RLSG provides long-term weight loss, although peri-operative complications are significantly elevated compared to PLSG. Longer-term re-operation rates are elevated compared to PLSG. Four variables predicted worse outcomes: eroded band, multiple prior bands, severe oesophageal dysmotility and elevated baseline weight. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11695-023-06886-8. Springer US 2023-10-17 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10687173/ /pubmed/37847457 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11695-023-06886-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Contributions
Wickremasinghe, Anagi
Leang, Yit
Johari, Yazmin
Chana, Prem
Alderuccio, Megan
Shaw, Kalai
Laurie, Cheryl
Nottle, Peter
Brown, Wendy
Burton, Paul
Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Revisional Procedure Following Adjustable Gastric Banding: Variations in Outcomes Based on Indication
title Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Revisional Procedure Following Adjustable Gastric Banding: Variations in Outcomes Based on Indication
title_full Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Revisional Procedure Following Adjustable Gastric Banding: Variations in Outcomes Based on Indication
title_fullStr Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Revisional Procedure Following Adjustable Gastric Banding: Variations in Outcomes Based on Indication
title_full_unstemmed Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Revisional Procedure Following Adjustable Gastric Banding: Variations in Outcomes Based on Indication
title_short Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Revisional Procedure Following Adjustable Gastric Banding: Variations in Outcomes Based on Indication
title_sort long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure following adjustable gastric banding: variations in outcomes based on indication
topic Original Contributions
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10687173/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37847457
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11695-023-06886-8
work_keys_str_mv AT wickremasingheanagi longtermoutcomesoflaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyasarevisionalprocedurefollowingadjustablegastricbandingvariationsinoutcomesbasedonindication
AT leangyit longtermoutcomesoflaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyasarevisionalprocedurefollowingadjustablegastricbandingvariationsinoutcomesbasedonindication
AT johariyazmin longtermoutcomesoflaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyasarevisionalprocedurefollowingadjustablegastricbandingvariationsinoutcomesbasedonindication
AT chanaprem longtermoutcomesoflaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyasarevisionalprocedurefollowingadjustablegastricbandingvariationsinoutcomesbasedonindication
AT alderucciomegan longtermoutcomesoflaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyasarevisionalprocedurefollowingadjustablegastricbandingvariationsinoutcomesbasedonindication
AT shawkalai longtermoutcomesoflaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyasarevisionalprocedurefollowingadjustablegastricbandingvariationsinoutcomesbasedonindication
AT lauriecheryl longtermoutcomesoflaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyasarevisionalprocedurefollowingadjustablegastricbandingvariationsinoutcomesbasedonindication
AT nottlepeter longtermoutcomesoflaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyasarevisionalprocedurefollowingadjustablegastricbandingvariationsinoutcomesbasedonindication
AT brownwendy longtermoutcomesoflaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyasarevisionalprocedurefollowingadjustablegastricbandingvariationsinoutcomesbasedonindication
AT burtonpaul longtermoutcomesoflaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyasarevisionalprocedurefollowingadjustablegastricbandingvariationsinoutcomesbasedonindication