SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2020
What to Propose After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding: One- or Two-step Procedure?
Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) can be proposed in case of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). The main question is whether the revisional procedure is carried out in one or two stages.
objectivePostoperative outcomes between the one-step approach and the two-step approach of conversion of failed LAGB to RYGB or SG were, respectively, compared.
methodsA systematic review of the literature published until June 2019 was conducted. All studies comparing one-step and two-step approaches after failed LAGB were included. Primary outcomes include both mortality and morbidity at 30 days postoperatively according to Dindo-Clavien classification. Among the studies included, a random effect model was used with Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).
resultsA total of 3895 patients had conversion of failed LAGB to RYGB (n = 3214) or SG (n = 681), respectively. The conversion was carried out in one-step (n = 2767) or two-step (n = 1128) approaches. Meta-analysis did not show statistical difference for overall morbidity rate (OR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.78-1.30, p = 0.96) whether it is for SG (OR = 1.25, 95%CI = 0.73-2.14, p = 0.42) or RYGB (OR = 0.94, 95%CI = 0.71-1.26, p = 0.69) and for major postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.96, 95%CI = 0.59-1.56, p = 0.87) whether it is for SG (OR = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.22-1.97, p = 0.46) or RYGB (OR = 1.05, 95%CI = 0.61-1.81, p = 0.86). Moreover, there was no statistical difference for specific morbidity rate including reoperation, leak, abscess, postoperative bleeding, and late postoperative complications. LIMITATIONS: Given the retrospective nature of the studies, these results should be interpreted with caution.
conclusionThis updated meta-analysis suggests that conversion of failed LAGB to RYGB or SG can be safely performed in one-step or two-step approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32458018What 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.