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: Abbas, A, Devriendt, S, Guerra, A, Herrera, M, Himpens, J, Pardina, E, Pouwels, S, Ramos, A, Ribeiro, R, Safadi, B, Sanchez-Aguilar, H, Vries, C, 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/10400.17/4056
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_f11048a84ab652182fae5ecdb2adf079
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.chlc.min-saude.pt:10400.17/4056
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 PatientsCHLC CIRHumansGastric Bypass*Gastroplasty*Laparoscopy*Obesity, Morbid* / surgeryPostoperative Complications / epidemiologyPostoperative Complications / surgeryReoperationTreatment OutcomeRetrospective StudiesBackground: 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.SpringerRepositório do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Central, EPEPujol-Rafols, JAbbas, ADevriendt, SGuerra, AHerrera, MHimpens, JPardina, EPouwels, SRamos, ARibeiro, RSafadi, BSanchez-Aguilar, HVries, CWagensveld, B2022-04-29T14:11:59Z20202020-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/4056engObes Surg. 2020 Dec;30(12):5026-5032.10.1007/s11695-020-04951-0.info: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:RCAAP2023-03-10T09:45:06Zoai:repositorio.chlc.min-saude.pt:10400.17/4056Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T17:21:22.012356Repositório 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
CHLC CIR
Humans
Gastric Bypass*
Gastroplasty*
Laparoscopy*
Obesity, Morbid* / surgery
Postoperative Complications / epidemiology
Postoperative Complications / surgery
Reoperation
Treatment Outcome
Retrospective Studies
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
Abbas, A
Devriendt, S
Guerra, A
Herrera, M
Himpens, J
Pardina, E
Pouwels, S
Ramos, A
Ribeiro, R
Safadi, B
Sanchez-Aguilar, H
Vries, C
Wagensveld, B
author_role author
author2 Abbas, A
Devriendt, S
Guerra, A
Herrera, M
Himpens, J
Pardina, E
Pouwels, S
Ramos, A
Ribeiro, R
Safadi, B
Sanchez-Aguilar, H
Vries, C
Wagensveld, B
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Central, EPE
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Pujol-Rafols, J
Abbas, A
Devriendt, S
Guerra, A
Herrera, M
Himpens, J
Pardina, E
Pouwels, S
Ramos, A
Ribeiro, R
Safadi, B
Sanchez-Aguilar, H
Vries, C
Wagensveld, B
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv CHLC CIR
Humans
Gastric Bypass*
Gastroplasty*
Laparoscopy*
Obesity, Morbid* / surgery
Postoperative Complications / epidemiology
Postoperative Complications / surgery
Reoperation
Treatment Outcome
Retrospective Studies
topic CHLC CIR
Humans
Gastric Bypass*
Gastroplasty*
Laparoscopy*
Obesity, Morbid* / surgery
Postoperative Complications / epidemiology
Postoperative Complications / surgery
Reoperation
Treatment Outcome
Retrospective Studies
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
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
2022-04-29T14:11:59Z
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/10400.17/4056
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/4056
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.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer
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_ 1799131309343244288