New U.s. Study Out
- Replies 11
- Views 2.4k
- Created
- Last Reply
Top Posters In This Topic
-
Cocoabean 3 posts
-
horsegirl315 3 posts
-
elcee 1 post
-
Lollicatt 1 post
Popular Days
Most Popular Posts
-
Denise, you sure are doing a lot of research today!!! Keep it coming! LOVING IT! Had I seen these stats before and been UNINFORMED, I would be scared. However, I know that success can happen with the
-
It would be nice if they could write these reports in plain English so us average Joes can actually understand what they are talking about!
Hello All,
I just found this study on Pub Med. It's the first long-term data I've seen on bands.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22219011
Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in the United States.
Spivak H, Abdelmelek MF, Beltran OR, Ng AW, Kitahama S.
Source
HS Laparoscopy, Weight-Loss Surgery Program, Park Plaza Hospital, 1313 Hermann Drive, 1200 Binz Suite 930, Houston, TX, 77004, USA, hadarspivak@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Although laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are the most common bariatric procedures performed in the past decade, little is known about their long-term (>5 years) outcomes.
METHODS:
A retrospective outcome study investigated 148 consecutive patients from a single practice who underwent LAGB from November 2000 to March 2002. The group was matched with 175 consecutive patients who underwent LRYGB from June 2000 to March 2005. Follow-up data for 5 years or longer was available for 127 LAGB patients (86%) and 105 LRYGB patients (60%).
RESULTS:
After an initial 4 years of progressive weight loss, body mass index (BMI) loss stabilized at 5-7 years at approximately 15 kg/m(2) for the LRYGB patients and at about 9 kg/m(2) for the LAGB patients with band in place (P < 0.01). At 7 years, the excess weight loss (EWL) was 58.6% for LRYGB and 46.3% for LAGB with band in place (P < 0.01). By 7 years, 19 LAGB patients (15%) had had their bands removed, bringing the failure rate forLAGB (including patients with less than 25% EWL) to 48.3% versus 10.7% for LRYGB (P < 0.01). By 10 years, 29 (22.8%) of the bands had been removed, bringing the total LAGBfailure rate to 51.1%. In 10 years, 67 LAGB (52.8%) and 43 LRYGB (41%) adverse events had occurred. However, over time, the LRYGB group experienced 9 (8.6%) serious, potentially life-threatening complications, whereas the LAGB group had none (P < 0.001). One procedure-related death occurred in the LRYGB group.
CONCLUSIONS:
Over the long term, LRYGB had an approximate reduction of 15 kg/m(2) BMI and 60% EWL, a significantly better outcome than LAGB patients experienced with band intact. The main issue with LAGB was its 50% failure rate in the long term, as defined by poor weight loss and percentage of band removal. Nevertheless, LAGB had a remarkably safe course, and it may therefore be considered for motivated and informed patients.