ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
A comparison between one- and two-stage revisional gastric bypass.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What to Propose After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding: One- or Two-step Procedure?World journal of surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Nissen Sleeve as a Redo Surgery Post Gastric Banding for Non-responders to Weight Loss and Therapy-Resistant Reflux.Obesity surgery · 2024Article
- Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as Conversion Procedure of Failed Gastric Banding: Short-Term Outcomes of 1295 Patients in One Single Center.Obesity surgery · 2023Article
- A Comparison of One- and Two-Stage Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Following Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding Using the BAROS Score.Obesity surgery · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Following Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding-a Comparison Between One- and two-Stage Procedures, an Israeli National Database Study.Obesity surgery · 2021Article
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
backgroundThe safety of performing a one-stage revision from laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) has been questioned. The objective of this study was to compare safety and outcomes of one-stage versus two-stage revisional LRYGB performed after failed LAGB.
methodsA retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing revisional LRYGB after failed LAGB between January 2007 and March 2017 was performed. Patients undergoing one- and two-stage revisions were compared. The primary outcome assessed was the early complication rate, while secondary outcomes included late complications, weight loss, and improvement of comorbidities.
resultsDuring the study period, 161 revisional LRYGB's were performed, including 121 one-stage and 40 two-stage procedures. Baseline demographic data, BMI and presence of comorbidities were similar between the groups. In patients undergoing a two-stage procedure, band slippage, port infection, and erosion were more commonly cited as indications for revision. Similar early complication rates were demonstrated between the groups. However, late complications were more common in the two-stage group (20.0% vs. 7.4%, P = 0.03), including higher rates of gastro-gastric fistula (5.0% vs. 0%, P = 0.01) and anemia (10.0% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.02). Three-fourths of the cohort had a follow-up of more than 6 months, and the two groups demonstrated similar weight loss results and improvement/resolution of comorbidities.
conclusionThe performance of one-stage revisional LRYGB after failed LAGB seems to be a safe procedure, with noninferior outcomes when compared to a two-stage revisional procedure. It is a valid option, except in cases of mechanical and infectious band complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30203204What 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.