ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Outcomes of routine upper gastrointestinal series screening and surveillance after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surgical approaches for achalasia and obesity: a systematic review and patient-level meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Late-Onset Gastric Band Erosion Following Heavy Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Use.ACG case reports journal · 2024Article
- Third time's a charm: band to sleeve to bypass.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal dilatation and dysmotility are known complications of the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), but their incidence varies widely in the literature. There are no formal recommendations guiding surveillance for these potentially underdiagnosed pathologies. This study demonstrates the utility and outcomes of a yearly upper gastrointestinal series screening protocol to detect and manage esophageal dysfunction after LAGB.
methodsWe reviewed charts for all patients presenting for an outpatient surgical encounter related to LAGB between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. Exclusion criteria included failure to undergo UGIS 6 months or more after band placement, or having undergone band placement in combination with another bariatric procedure. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, imaging findings and surgical outcomes. All imaging classifications were based on final radiologist report. Means were compared using a Student's t test.
resultsA total of 322 records were reviewed with 39 patients excluded; 31 without UGIS and 8 with concomitant gastric bypass. 85% were female with an average age of 50 years. 66.8% identified as white or Caucasian with 24.7% black/African-American. Greater than 75% of the cohort had at least 5-year follow-up interval. UGIS was performed for symptoms in 66.1% and for routine screening in 33.9%. Of asymptomatic patients, 47.9% demonstrated esophageal dilatation or dysmotility on UGIS, similar to 51.3% of symptomatic patients. 96.8% of all patients went on to band removal. Sixty-four patients had repeat UGIS an average of 8 months following band removal, of which 40.6% were persistently abnormal.
conclusionsThe incidence of esophageal pathology was significantly higher than most reported series, as was the number of patients with persistently abnormal UGIS despite band removal. The data supports our policy of yearly UGIS for all post-LAGB patients, with strong recommendation for band removal if esophageal dilatation or dysmotility is found.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31346752What 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.