Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27995516›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2017

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy as Revisional Procedures after Adjustable Gastric Band: 5-Year Outcomes.

Luigi Angrisani, Antonio Vitiello, Antonella Santonicola, Ariola Hasani, Maurizio De Luca, Paola Iovino

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Luigi AngrisaniGeneral and Endoscopic Surgery Unit, San Giovanni Bosco Hospital, Naples, Italy.
Antonio VitielloDepartment of Endocrinology, Gastroenterology and Surgery, University Hospital of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy. antoniovitiello_@hotmail.it.ORCID 0000-0003-1514-7112
Antonella SantonicolaGastrointestinal Unit, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy.
Ariola HasaniDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Maurizio De LucaThoracic and Abdominal Surgery Department, Montebelluna-Treviso Hospital, Montebelluna, Italy.
Paola IovinoGastrointestinal Unit, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy.
University of Salerno · ITCa' Foncello Hospital · ITFederico II University Hospital · ITOspedale San Giovanni Bosco · ITUniversity of Naples Federico II · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn 2013, a worldwide bariatric surgery survey showed that laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been abandoned in favor of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-y gastric bypass (LRYGBP). PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare results of LRYGBP and LSG performed as a revisional procedure after LAGB. MATERIALS AND

methodsAll patients converted from LAGB to LSG or to LRYGBP from January 2007 to December 2011 were included in the study. Clinical data collected were age, gender, indications for revision, complications, body mass index (BMI), and body weight at revisional procedures. Weight loss was calculated at 1, 3, and 5 years after conversion.

resultsFifty-one patients were included in this study, 43 females and 8 males. Twenty-four patients were converted to LRYGBP (LRYGBP group) and 27 to LSG (LSG group). Indication for conversion was weight loss failure in 34 (67%) patients and band complications in 17 (33%) patients. No significant difference in age, BMI, and body weight in the two groups was found at the time of revision. One patient converted to LRYGBP had an internal hernia; one patient initially scheduled for LSG was intraoperatively converted to LRYGBP due to staple line leak. No other major perioperative complication was observed. Follow-up rate at 5 years was 84.3% (43 patients out of 51 patients) Delta-BMI and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) were not significantly different in the two groups at 1, 3, and 5 years (p > 0.05).

conclusionLRYGBP or LSG are feasible and effective surgical options after LAGB. Satisfactory weight loss was achieved after both procedures.

Indexed as

Gastric BypassReoperationAdultDatabases, FactualFemaleGastrectomyGastroplastyHumansItalyLaparoscopyMaleObesity, MorbidPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment FailureTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic adjustable gastric bandingLaparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypassLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomyLong-term resultsRevisional surgery

Identifiers

PMID27995516
OpenAlexW2567027590

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.