ArticleObesity surgery2021
Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Failed Gastric Banding: One-Step or Two-Step Revisional Surgery?
Article in Obesity surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- One-stage versus two-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass as redo surgery of failed adjustable gastric banding.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023Article
- Revisional bariatric surgery after adjustable gastric band: a multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS).BMC surgery · 2023Article
- One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Gastric Bypass as Redo Surgery After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding-Observation Comparative Multicenter Study.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic management of a left hepatic vein injury during one -step laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after adjustable gastric banding removal: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2022Article
- Feasibility and Short-Term Outcomes of One-Step and Two-Step Sleeve Gastrectomy as Revision Procedures for Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding Compared With Those After Primary Sleeve Gastrectomy.Frontiers in 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical revision rates are high, reaching 41% at 10 years after Laparoscopic gastric band (LAGB). Surgical revision may include re-banding, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), duodenal switch (DS), or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). LRYGBP has been proposed as the procedure of choice after failure of restrictive procedures with better results than any other procedure. LRYGB as a revisional bariatric surgery is hazardous compared with primary LRYGB. However, controversy as to whether revisional bariatric surgery should be performed as a one-step revision or as a two-step revision.
objectiveWe aim to compare the mortality and morbidity between one-step versus two-step revisional surgery from LAGB to LRYGB. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective cohort study of our revisional surgery from LAGB to LRYGB between November 2007 and December 2016. Revisional surgery was indicated in cases of inadequate weight loss or weight regain and after band-related complications. Gastric band removal and conversion to LRYGB was either in a one-step or a two-step procedure, according to the indication of this revisional surgery and based on the intra-operative decision.
resultsOne-step group included 107 patients, two-step group had 76 patients. MINOR COMPLICATIONS: Dindo-Clavien I-II: 5 complication in the one-step group, whereas 4 complication were seen in the two-step group (P = 1.000). MAJOR COMPLICATIONS: Dindo-Clavien ≥ IIIa complications: 10 complication in the one-step group, whereas 2 complications in the two-step group (P = 0.127).
conclusionOne-step revision is safe and feasible, without significant increased morbidity when performed in a specialized institution. However, proper patient selection is of the utmost importance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.