Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Pujol-Rafols, J
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Al Abbas, AI, Devriendt, S, Guerra, A, Herrera, MF, Himpens, J, Pardina, E, Pouwels, S, Ramos, A, Ribeiro, RJ, Safadi, B, Sanchez-Aguilar, H, de Vries, C, Van Wagensveld, B
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/34306
Resumo: Background: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is often the preferred conversion procedure for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) poor responders. However, there is controversy whether it is better to convert in one or two stages. This study aims to compare the outcomes of one and two-stage conversions of LAGB to RYGB. Methods: Retrospective review of a multicenter prospectively collected database. Data on conversion in one and two stages was compared. Results: Eight hundred thirty-two patients underwent LAGB conversion to RYGB in seven specialized bariatric centers. Six hundred seventy-three (81%) were converted in one-stage. Patients in the two-stage group were more likely to have experienced technical complications, such as slippage or erosions (86% vs. 37%, p = 0.0001) and to have had a higher body mass index (BMI) (41.6 vs. 39.9 Kg/m2, p = 0.005). There were no differences in postoperative complications and mortality rates between the one-stage and two-stage groups (13.5% vs. 10.8%, and 0.7% vs. 0.0% respectively, p = ns). Mean final BMI and %total weight loss (%TWL) for the one-stage and the two-stage groups were 31.6 vs. 32.4 Kg/m2 (p = ns) and 30.4 vs. 26.8 (p = 0.017) after a mean follow-up of 33 months. Follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years was 98%, 75%, and 54%, respectively. Conclusions: One-stage conversion of LAGB to RYGB is safe and effective. Two-stage conversion carries low morbidity and mortality in the case of band slippage, erosion, or higher BMI patients. These findings suggest the importance of patient selection when choosing the appropriate conversion approach
id RCAP_1e22cb6e7a6130d02d919d83b75d2db9
oai_identifier_str oai:comum.rcaap.pt:10400.26/34306
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 PatientsObesidade/cirurgiaCirurgia BariátricaBypass GástricoObesity/surgeryBariatric SurgeryGastric BypassBackground: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is often the preferred conversion procedure for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) poor responders. However, there is controversy whether it is better to convert in one or two stages. This study aims to compare the outcomes of one and two-stage conversions of LAGB to RYGB. Methods: Retrospective review of a multicenter prospectively collected database. Data on conversion in one and two stages was compared. Results: Eight hundred thirty-two patients underwent LAGB conversion to RYGB in seven specialized bariatric centers. Six hundred seventy-three (81%) were converted in one-stage. Patients in the two-stage group were more likely to have experienced technical complications, such as slippage or erosions (86% vs. 37%, p = 0.0001) and to have had a higher body mass index (BMI) (41.6 vs. 39.9 Kg/m2, p = 0.005). There were no differences in postoperative complications and mortality rates between the one-stage and two-stage groups (13.5% vs. 10.8%, and 0.7% vs. 0.0% respectively, p = ns). Mean final BMI and %total weight loss (%TWL) for the one-stage and the two-stage groups were 31.6 vs. 32.4 Kg/m2 (p = ns) and 30.4 vs. 26.8 (p = 0.017) after a mean follow-up of 33 months. Follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years was 98%, 75%, and 54%, respectively. Conclusions: One-stage conversion of LAGB to RYGB is safe and effective. Two-stage conversion carries low morbidity and mortality in the case of band slippage, erosion, or higher BMI patients. These findings suggest the importance of patient selection when choosing the appropriate conversion approachRepositório ComumPujol-Rafols, JAl Abbas, AIDevriendt, SGuerra, AHerrera, MFHimpens, JPardina, EPouwels, SRamos, ARibeiro, RJSafadi, BSanchez-Aguilar, Hde Vries, CVan Wagensveld, B2020-12-10T21:51:22Z2020-122020-12-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/34306engObes Surg . 2020 Dec;30(12):5026-5032.10.1007/s11695-020-04951-0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-07-25T04:46:17Zoai:comum.rcaap.pt:10400.26/34306Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T20:09:32.401104Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients
title Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients
spellingShingle Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients
Pujol-Rafols, J
Obesidade/cirurgia
Cirurgia Bariátrica
Bypass Gástrico
Obesity/surgery
Bariatric Surgery
Gastric Bypass
title_short Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients
title_full Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients
title_fullStr Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients
title_full_unstemmed Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients
title_sort Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients
author Pujol-Rafols, J
author_facet Pujol-Rafols, J
Al Abbas, AI
Devriendt, S
Guerra, A
Herrera, MF
Himpens, J
Pardina, E
Pouwels, S
Ramos, A
Ribeiro, RJ
Safadi, B
Sanchez-Aguilar, H
de Vries, C
Van Wagensveld, B
author_role author
author2 Al Abbas, AI
Devriendt, S
Guerra, A
Herrera, MF
Himpens, J
Pardina, E
Pouwels, S
Ramos, A
Ribeiro, RJ
Safadi, B
Sanchez-Aguilar, H
de Vries, C
Van Wagensveld, B
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório Comum
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Pujol-Rafols, J
Al Abbas, AI
Devriendt, S
Guerra, A
Herrera, MF
Himpens, J
Pardina, E
Pouwels, S
Ramos, A
Ribeiro, RJ
Safadi, B
Sanchez-Aguilar, H
de Vries, C
Van Wagensveld, B
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Obesidade/cirurgia
Cirurgia Bariátrica
Bypass Gástrico
Obesity/surgery
Bariatric Surgery
Gastric Bypass
topic Obesidade/cirurgia
Cirurgia Bariátrica
Bypass Gástrico
Obesity/surgery
Bariatric Surgery
Gastric Bypass
description Background: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is often the preferred conversion procedure for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) poor responders. However, there is controversy whether it is better to convert in one or two stages. This study aims to compare the outcomes of one and two-stage conversions of LAGB to RYGB. Methods: Retrospective review of a multicenter prospectively collected database. Data on conversion in one and two stages was compared. Results: Eight hundred thirty-two patients underwent LAGB conversion to RYGB in seven specialized bariatric centers. Six hundred seventy-three (81%) were converted in one-stage. Patients in the two-stage group were more likely to have experienced technical complications, such as slippage or erosions (86% vs. 37%, p = 0.0001) and to have had a higher body mass index (BMI) (41.6 vs. 39.9 Kg/m2, p = 0.005). There were no differences in postoperative complications and mortality rates between the one-stage and two-stage groups (13.5% vs. 10.8%, and 0.7% vs. 0.0% respectively, p = ns). Mean final BMI and %total weight loss (%TWL) for the one-stage and the two-stage groups were 31.6 vs. 32.4 Kg/m2 (p = ns) and 30.4 vs. 26.8 (p = 0.017) after a mean follow-up of 33 months. Follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years was 98%, 75%, and 54%, respectively. Conclusions: One-stage conversion of LAGB to RYGB is safe and effective. Two-stage conversion carries low morbidity and mortality in the case of band slippage, erosion, or higher BMI patients. These findings suggest the importance of patient selection when choosing the appropriate conversion approach
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-12-10T21:51:22Z
2020-12
2020-12-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/34306
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/34306
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Obes Surg . 2020 Dec;30(12):5026-5032.
10.1007/s11695-020-04951-0
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799133343384600576