Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34604938›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2022

Long-term outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure after failed gastric band: a multicenter cross-matched cohort study.

Francesco de Angelis, Cristian Eugeniu Boru, Angelo Iossa, Nicola Perotta, Fabio Cesare Campanile, Gianfranco Silecchia

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Francesco de Angelis *Division of General Surgery & Bariatric Center of Excellence IFSO-EC, Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, University La Sapienza of Rome, Corso Della Repubblica, 78, 04100, Latina, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8693-416X
Cristian Eugeniu Boru *Division of General Surgery & Bariatric Center of Excellence IFSO-EC, Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, University La Sapienza of Rome, Corso Della Repubblica, 78, 04100, Latina, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9171-4460
Angelo IossaDivision of General Surgery & Bariatric Center of Excellence IFSO-EC, Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, University La Sapienza of Rome, Corso Della Repubblica, 78, 04100, Latina, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6798-8100
Nicola PerottaDepartment of General Surgery, "San Pio da Pietralcina" Hospital, Villa D'Agri, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9571-2670
Fabio Cesare CampanileDivision of General Surgery, Andosilla Hospital, Civita Castellana, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3830-634X
Gianfranco SilecchiaDivision of General Surgery & Bariatric Center of Excellence IFSO-EC, Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, University La Sapienza of Rome, Corso Della Repubblica, 78, 04100, Latina, Italy. gianfranco.silecchia@uniroma1.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2356-0505

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is the bariatric procedure most likely subject to revisional surgery. Both laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) represent viable options, but the long-term results are still lacking. In 2014, we published the 2-year follow-up of our multicenter cohort of revisional LSG after failed LAGB. Evaluate the long-term follow-up (median 9.3 years) of the same cohort of patients. University and primary-care hospitals, Italy. We retrospectively examined a prospectively maintained database of the previously published multicenter cohort of 56 patients who underwent LSG after failed LAGB between 2008-2011. The control group included cross-matched non-revisional LSGs. The primary endpoint was weight loss, secondary endpoints co-morbidities, and the need for further bariatric surgery. The study group included 44 patients and the control group 56. We found %EWL 53% Vs. 67% (p = .021), %EBMIL (54 Vs. 68%, p = .018), %TWL (26 Vs. 34%, p = .002). We also found more severe GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease) symptoms in the revisional than in the primary group (9.0 vs. 1.8% mild and 23.0 vs. 3.0% severe). Ten patients from the revisional group (22.7%) vs. eight in the primary group (13%) underwent further bariatric surgery (LRYGB). Our results showed less favorable weight loss in revisional than primary LSG after LABG, higher prevalence of GERD, and a more frequent need for further revisional surgery. Despite the study's limitations, the present data suggest that the long-term outcomes may offset the possible reduced short-term complication rate after revisional sleeve gastrectomy for a failed LABG.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryGastric BypassGastroesophageal RefluxGastroplastyLaparoscopyObesity, MorbidCohort StudiesGastrectomyHumansReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeWeight LossFailed gastric bandingGastric bypassGERDRevisional surgerySleeve gastrectomyWeight regain

Identifiers

PMID34604938
PMCPMC8995258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.