ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Safety and efficacy of single-stage conversion of failed adjustable gastric band to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a case-control study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Safe Surgical Opportunity? Results of a Case-Matched Study.Obesity surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe conducted the following study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of single-stage conversion of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) as compared to a cohort of primary LRYGB patients.
methodsA single-institution, prospectively maintained bariatric database was used to retrospectively identify consecutive patients who underwent single-stage removal of LAGB with concomitant conversion to LRYGB between the years of 2007 and 2013. The study cohort was matched 1:1 for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and approximate date of operation to patients who underwent primary LRYGB. Primary endpoints were operative time, complication rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and percent excess BMI lost (%EBMIL) at 24-month follow-up.
resultsNinety-four conversion patients met inclusion criteria. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean LOS (3.1 vs. 3.0 days, p = 0.97) or the major complication rate (3.2 vs. 1.1 %, p = 0.62) at 30 days postoperatively. Likewise, 30-day minor complication rates, including readmission, were similar between groups (7.5 vs. 6.4 %, p = 0.77). The average operative time was significantly longer for conversion compared to primary LRYGB (193.5 vs. 132 min; p < 0.01). At most recent follow-up after conversion or primary LRYGB, median %EBMIL was 61.3 and 77.3 % (p < 0.01), percent total weight loss was 23.6 and 30.5 % (p < 0.01), and percent change in BMI was 23.4 and 30.5 % (p < 0.01), respectively. Median follow-up time was 17 and 18.6 months after conversion and primary LRYGB, respectively.
conclusionSingle-stage conversion of LAGB to LRYGB is safe with an acceptable complication rate and similar LOS compared to primary LRYGB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27129555What 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.