Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26335074›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016

Single-stage revision from gastric band to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy: 6- and 12-month outcomes.

Louise Yeung, Brandice Durkan, Allison Barrett, Cary Kraft, Kim Vu, Edward Phillips, Scott Cunneen, Miguel Burch

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Louise YeungDepartment of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8635 W 3rd St, MOT, Suite 795 W, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA. yeungl@wustl.edu.
Brandice DurkanDepartment of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8635 W 3rd St, MOT, Suite 795 W, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA.
Allison BarrettDepartment of Surgery, Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, Hempstead, NY, USA.
Cary KraftDepartment of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8635 W 3rd St, MOT, Suite 795 W, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA.
Kim VuDepartment of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8635 W 3rd St, MOT, Suite 795 W, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA.
Edward PhillipsDepartment of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8635 W 3rd St, MOT, Suite 795 W, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA.
Scott CunneenDepartment of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8635 W 3rd St, MOT, Suite 795 W, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA.
Miguel BurchDepartment of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8635 W 3rd St, MOT, Suite 795 W, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center · USHofstra University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is increasingly requiring revisional surgery for complications and failures. Removal of the band and conversion to either laparoscopic Roux-en-y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is feasible as a single-stage procedure. The objective of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of single-stage revision from LAGB to either LRYGB or LSG at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.

methodsRetrospective analysis was performed on patients undergoing single-stage revision between 2009 and 2014 at a single academic medical center. Patients were reassessed for weight loss and complications at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.

resultsThirty-two patients underwent single-stage revision to LRYGB, and 72 to LSG. Preoperative BMIs were similar between the two groups (p = 0.27). Median length of stay for LRYGB was 3 days versus 2 for LSG (p = 0.14). Four patients in the LRYGB group required reoperation within 30 days, and two patients in the LSG group required reoperation within 30 days (p = 0.15). There was no difference in ER visits (p = 0.24) or readmission rates (p = 0.80) within 30 days of operation. Six delayed complications were seen in the LSG group with three requiring intervention. At 6 months postoperatively, percent excess weight loss (%EWL) was 50.20 for LRYGB and 30.64 for LSG (p = 0.056). At 12 months, %EWL was 51.19 for LRYGB and 34.89 for LSG (p = 0.31). There was no difference in diabetes or hypertension medication reduction at 12 months between LRYGB and LSG (p > 0.07).

conclusionSingle-stage revision from LAGB to LRYGB or LSG is technically feasible, but not without complications. The complications in the bypass group were more severe. There was no difference in readmission or reoperation rates, weight loss or comorbidity reduction. Revision to LRYGB trended toward higher rate and greater severity of complications with equivalent weight loss and comorbidity reduction.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFeasibility StudiesFemaleGastrectomyGastric BypassGastroplastyHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedObesity, MorbidPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBariatricsGastric bandGastric bypassRevisionSingle-stageSleeve gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID26335074
OpenAlexW1271359488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.