Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Sleeve Gastrectomy As a Rescue of Failed Gastric Banding: Comparison of 1- and 2-Step Approaches Publisher Pubmed



Demouron M1 ; Rebibo L2, 3, 4 ; Davarpanah Jazi AH5 ; Arapis K2 ; Hansel B6 ; Dhahri A1, 4 ; Regimbeau JM1, 4 ; Msika S2, 3
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Department of Digestive Surgery, Amiens University Medical Center, Amiens, France
  2. 2. Department of Digestive, Esogastric and Bariatric Surgery, Bichat Claude Bernard University Hospital, Paris, France
  3. 3. Universite de Paris, Paris, France
  4. 4. SSPC (Simplification of Surgical Patients Care) - Clinical Research Unit, University of Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France
  5. 5. Minimally Invasive Surgery Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
  6. 6. Department of Diabetes and Nutrition, Bichat Claude Bernard University Hospital, Paris, France

Source: Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases Published:2020


Abstract

Background: Series comparing gastric banding (GB) removal and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) when procedures are performed as a 1- or a 2-step approach are contradictory in their outcomes. No series comparing these approaches with midterm weight loss is available. Objectives: Compare the outcomes and weight loss of SG performed as 1- and 2-step approaches as a revisional procedure for GB failure. Setting: University Hospital, France, public practice. Methods: Between February 2006 and January 2017, all patients undergoing SG with a previous history of implementation of GB (n = 358) were included in this 2-center, retrospective, observational study. Revisional surgery was proposed in patients with insufficient excess weight loss (excess weight loss ≤50%) or weight regain after GB. A 1-step (1-step group, n = 270) or 2-step (2-step group, n = 88) approach was decided depending on patient's choice and/or surgeon's preference. The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of weight loss in the 1- and 2-step groups at the 2-year follow-up. The secondary efficacy endpoints were short-term outcomes (overall mortality and morbidity at postoperative day 30, specific morbidity, reoperation, length of hospital stay, and readmission). Results: In the 1-step group, the mean preoperative body mass index before SG was 40.5 kg/m2 (27.0–69.0), while in the 2-step group, the mean preoperative body mass index was 43.5 kg/m2 (31.5–61.7). Mean operating time was 109 minutes (50–240) in the 1-step group and 78.7 minutes (40–175) in the 2-step group (P =. 22). In the 1-step group, 6 conversions to laparotomy occurred, while in the 2-step group, 2 conversions to laparotomy occurred (P =. 75). One death (.2%, in the 2-step group) and 39 complications (30 in the 1-step group [11.1%] and 9 in the 2-step group [10.2%]) also occurred. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.2 days in the 1-step group and 4.1 days in the 2-step group. At 2-year follow-up, mean body mass index was 32.4 kg/m2 in the 1-step group and 33.2 kg/m2 in the 2-step group (P =. 15), representing excess weight losses of 61.9 and 50.1 (P = .05), respectively. The rates of revisional surgery were. 7% and 2.2%, respectively. Conclusions: SG after previous GB is efficient with similar outcomes depending on the 1- or 2-step approach. The 1-step approach seems to have increased weight loss compared with the 2-step approach. © 2020 American Society for Bariatric Surgery
Other Related Docs
16. Effect of Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy on Body Image, Journal of Isfahan Medical School (2018)
20. Ultrasonic Liposuction Versus Surgical Lipectomy, Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (2003)