One-year outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding for the treatment of morbid obesity

7Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Sleeve gastrectomy is emerging to be the procedure of choice in the management of severe obesity. The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes between patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) versus laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). A retrospective matched cohort analysis was performed between 150 patients who underwent LSG versus 150 patients who underwent LAGB. The cohorts were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and preoperative comorbidities. Length of hospital stay (1.6 vs 1.1 days, P < 0.01) was longer in the LSG group. Perioperative complications were similar between groups (4.6% for LSG vs 2.0% for LAGB) but the late complication rate was significantly lower in the LSG group (1.3 vs 8.0%). The 30-day reoperation (0 vs 0.7%) and readmission (1.3 vs 1.3%) rates were similar between groups. There were no 90-day mortalities in the study. The mean reduction in BMI was significantly higher for LSG (-11.9 kg/m2 for LSG vs -6.2 kg/m2 for LAGB, P < 0.01) at 1-year follow-up. The number of medications used to control all comorbidities was significantly lower at follow-up compared with baseline for both groups. The mean reduction in the number medications used to control hypertension was greater in the LSG group (-1.00 6 0.70 vs -0.35 6 0.70 medications, P < 0.01). LSG has a perioperative safety profile comparable to that of LAGB but achieved significantly better weight loss and control of hypertension with a lower rate of late complications.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Young, M. T., Gebhart, A., Khalaf, R., Toomari, N., Vu, S., Smith, B., & Nguyen, N. T. (2014). One-year outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding for the treatment of morbid obesity. American Surgeon, 80(10), 1049–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/000313481408001030

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free