Sleeve gastrectomy as a rescue of failed gastric banding: comparison of 1- and 2-step approaches.


Journal

Surgery for obesity and related diseases : official journal of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery
ISSN: 1878-7533
Titre abrégé: Surg Obes Relat Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101233161

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Historique:
received: 10 09 2019
revised: 10 03 2020
accepted: 11 03 2020
pubmed: 14 5 2020
medline: 28 4 2021
entrez: 14 5 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Series comparing gastric banding (GB) removal and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) when procedures are performed as a 1- or a 2-step approach are contradictory in their outcomes. No series comparing these approaches with midterm weight loss is available. Compare the outcomes and weight loss of SG performed as 1- and 2-step approaches as a revisional procedure for GB failure. University Hospital, France, public practice. Between February 2006 and January 2017, all patients undergoing SG with a previous history of implementation of GB (n = 358) were included in this 2-center, retrospective, observational study. Revisional surgery was proposed in patients with insufficient excess weight loss (excess weight loss ≤50%) or weight regain after GB. A 1-step (1-step group, n = 270) or 2-step (2-step group, n = 88) approach was decided depending on patient's choice and/or surgeon's preference. The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of weight loss in the 1- and 2-step groups at the 2-year follow-up. The secondary efficacy endpoints were short-term outcomes (overall mortality and morbidity at postoperative day 30, specific morbidity, reoperation, length of hospital stay, and readmission). In the 1-step group, the mean preoperative body mass index before SG was 40.5 kg/m SG after previous GB is efficient with similar outcomes depending on the 1- or 2-step approach. The 1-step approach seems to have increased weight loss compared with the 2-step approach.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Series comparing gastric banding (GB) removal and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) when procedures are performed as a 1- or a 2-step approach are contradictory in their outcomes. No series comparing these approaches with midterm weight loss is available.
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
Compare the outcomes and weight loss of SG performed as 1- and 2-step approaches as a revisional procedure for GB failure.
SETTING METHODS
University Hospital, France, public practice.
METHODS METHODS
Between February 2006 and January 2017, all patients undergoing SG with a previous history of implementation of GB (n = 358) were included in this 2-center, retrospective, observational study. Revisional surgery was proposed in patients with insufficient excess weight loss (excess weight loss ≤50%) or weight regain after GB. A 1-step (1-step group, n = 270) or 2-step (2-step group, n = 88) approach was decided depending on patient's choice and/or surgeon's preference. The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of weight loss in the 1- and 2-step groups at the 2-year follow-up. The secondary efficacy endpoints were short-term outcomes (overall mortality and morbidity at postoperative day 30, specific morbidity, reoperation, length of hospital stay, and readmission).
RESULTS RESULTS
In the 1-step group, the mean preoperative body mass index before SG was 40.5 kg/m
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
SG after previous GB is efficient with similar outcomes depending on the 1- or 2-step approach. The 1-step approach seems to have increased weight loss compared with the 2-step approach.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32402733
pii: S1550-7289(20)30144-1
doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2020.03.015
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Observational Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1045-1051

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Marion Demouron (M)

Department of Digestive Surgery, Amiens University Medical Center, Amiens, France.

Lionel Rebibo (L)

Department of Digestive, Esogastric and Bariatric Surgery, Bichat Claude Bernard University Hospital, Paris, France; Université de Paris, Paris, France; SSPC (Simplification of Surgical Patients Care) - Clinical Research Unit, University of Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France.

Amir Hossein Davarpanah Jazi (AH)

Minimally Invasive Surgery Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

Konstantinos Arapis (K)

Department of Digestive, Esogastric and Bariatric Surgery, Bichat Claude Bernard University Hospital, Paris, France.

Boris Hansel (B)

Department of Diabetes and Nutrition, Bichat Claude Bernard University Hospital, Paris, France.

Abdennaceur Dhahri (A)

Department of Digestive Surgery, Amiens University Medical Center, Amiens, France; SSPC (Simplification of Surgical Patients Care) - Clinical Research Unit, University of Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France.

Jean-Marc Regimbeau (JM)

Department of Digestive Surgery, Amiens University Medical Center, Amiens, France; SSPC (Simplification of Surgical Patients Care) - Clinical Research Unit, University of Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France.

Simon Msika (S)

Department of Digestive, Esogastric and Bariatric Surgery, Bichat Claude Bernard University Hospital, Paris, France; Université de Paris, Paris, France. Electronic address: simon.msika@aphp.fr.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH