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!
Featured Replies
Join the conversation
You can post as a guest; create a free account to track replies, follow topics, and be part of the largest weight loss surgery community.
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.