ArticleObesity surgery2012
Evolving pattern of laparoscopic gastric band access port complications.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ten-Year Results of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Retrospective Matched Comparison with Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding-Is There a Significant Difference in Long Term?Obesity surgery · 2021Article
- Revision Procedures After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding: Comparison of Efficacy and Safety.Obesity surgery · 2017Article
- Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band: how to reduce the early morbidity.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
- Analysis of reoperations after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic gastric banding (LGB) is the commonest bariatric procedure in Australia. The commonest complication of LGB is access port or tubing (AP/T) problems, requiring revisional surgery. The aim of this study was to document the evolving pattern of AP/T complications. All patients whose LGB procedure (Allergan(TM) Bands) and AP/T revision (Allergan(TM) port revision sets) were performed by one surgeon (1999 to 2008) were included, giving 167 AP/T revisions in 124 patients out of a total 1,928 LGB patients. All patient follow-up details were prospectively recorded and retrospectively analysed. Incidence of LGB AP/T problems was 8.7%. Mean time to first AP/T revision was 2 years. Over the last 4 years of the series, the number of LGB insertions was constant, but the number of AP/T revisions progressively increased. Twenty-seven percent of AP/T revision patients required two or more AP/T revisions. Sixty-two percent of the AP/T complications were leaks. Half the AP complications were flipping of the AP. There was no correlation of AP/T problems with any changes to port design to date. Infection rate for LGB insertion was 0.67%. The incidence of LGB AP/T complications progressively increases with duration after LGB insertion. Occurrence of one AP/T problem appears to select a subgroup more likely to experience further AP/T problems. To date, revisions of port design do not appear to have solved AP/T problems. Recent introduction of a significantly redesigned port may reduce AP/T failures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.