Comparison of the mid-term outcomes of banded and non-banded sleeve gastrectomy: safety, food tolerance, and weight regain

4Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Long-term weight regain (WR) after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is a major challenge. Laparoscopic banded SG (BSG) was introduced to overcome pouch dilation and, consequently, WR; however, its mid-and long-term outcomes have not been sufficiently demonstrated. Objective: This study retrospectively evaluated the mid-term weight loss efficacy and morbidity over at least a 4-year follow-up after laparoscopic banded SG using a MiniMizer Gastric Ring® and laparoscopic non-banded SG. Method: The data of 1586 bariatric surgeries were retrospectively evaluated. To ensure homogeneity in our study cohort, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. Results: The final cohort comprised 1392 patients: the non-banded SG (n = 1260) and BSG (n = 132) groups. In our matched cohort (SG, n = 655 and BSG, n = 132), WR was noted in 4 (3.0%) and 71 (10.8%) patients in the BSG and SG groups, respectively. Gastric band erosion or slippage was not noted in the BSG cohort. The levels of cholesterol and triglyceride were similar in the two groups. Postoperative glycemic control was significantly reduced in the BSG group. Conclusion: Although the percentage of weight loss achieved in the BSG group was low in the first year postoperatively, the mid-term (sustained) weight loss associated with BSG was superior to that associated with non-banded SG. BSG is a safe procedure with no significant mid-term band-related morbidity; its impact on the resolution of comorbidities is equivalent and perhaps superior to SG.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hany, M., Sabry, A., Torensma, B., Ahmed, K., Refaie, M., Zidan, A., … Mourad, M. (2022). Comparison of the mid-term outcomes of banded and non-banded sleeve gastrectomy: safety, food tolerance, and weight regain. Surgical Endoscopy, 36(12), 9146–9155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09395-4

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