0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

Role of a Minimally Invasive Approach in the Management of Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding Postoperative Complications FREE

Gianfranco Silecchia, MD, PhD; Nicola Perrotta, MD; Cristian Boru, MD; Alessandro Pecchia, MD; Mario Rizzello, MD; Francesco Greco, MD; Alfredo Genco, MD; Vincenzo Bacci, MD; Nicola Basso, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Surgery [[ldquo]]Paride Stefanini[[rdquo]] (Drs Silecchia, Perrotta, Boru, Pecchia, Rizzello, Greco, Genco, and Basso) and Clinical and Applied Medical Therapy (Dr Bacci), Policlinico Umberto I, Universit[[agrave]] [[ldquo]]La Sapienza[[rdquo]] Roma, Rome, Italy.


Arch Surg. 2004;139(11):1225-1230. doi:10.1001/archsurg.139.11.1225.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Hypothesis  Complications after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding as treatment for morbid obesity may require a major reintervention. A minimally invasive approach represents an attractive management alternative for such complications.

Design  Prospective case series.

Setting  Major academic medical and surgical center.

Patients  From January 1996 to July 2003, 47 patients who had undergone laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding were operated on again. Considering the causes for reoperation, the patients were divided into 4 groups: group A had major complications (n = 26); group B, minor complications (n = 11); group C, psychological problems (n = 6); and group D, insufficient weight loss (n = 4).

Interventions  Forty-three procedures, 38 using general anesthesia (groups A, C, and D) and 5 using local anesthesia (group B), were performed.

Main Outcome Measures  Feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of a minimally invasive approach in the treatment of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding complications.

Results  In group A, 9 of 10 patients with irreversible gastric pouch dilatation and 15 of 16 with intragastric band migrations were treated laparoscopically. In group B, 5 ports were substituted and 2 reconnections of the catheter-port system were performed. In group C, 6 laparoscopic band removals were carried out. In group D, 4 laparoscopic revision procedures for insufficient weight loss were performed. The operative mortality was nil. The most frequent cause of reoperation was intragastric migration (37.2%). A minimally invasive approach was adopted in 94.7% of cases.

Conclusion  Laparoscopy is safe and effective, even as a second operative procedure.

Figures in this Article

Obesity represents one of the major public health problems in Western as well as in developing countries, and it may be defined as a “new global epidemic.”16 In the United States, the incidence of obesity is around 25% (morbid obesity is more than 5%), while in Italy there are about 4 million obese patients (9.1% of total population). Morbid obesity is a chronic disease, characterized by a body mass index (BMI) (weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) greater than 40 or greater than 35 when serious comorbidities are present.

Morbid obesity is often associated with diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, osteoarthropathies,7 and different types of neoplasm. Unfortunately, medical treatment has been shown to be effective in fewer than 5% of cases. At present, the surgical treatment of morbid obesity, bariatric surgery, represents the only long-term effective treatment. The therapeutic goal is to achieve a significant and stable weight loss with a BMI less than 35 or an excess weight loss of 50%.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) using the Kuzmak siliconering (BioEnterics LAP-BAND System; INAMED, Santa Barbara, Calif) or the Swedish Adjustable Gastric Band (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc, Cincinnati, Ohio),8 proposed by Halberg et al,9 has become in the last decade the most popular procedure in Europe and Australia (more than 120 000 LAP-BAND systems have been positioned). In Italy, according to the data supplied by GILB (an Italian group for LAP-BAND use), from January 1996 until present, about 3600 LAP-BAND systems have been positioned. The reasons are the relative simplicity of the laparoscopic procedure without visceral sections or anastomoses, the adjustability of the band, the almost complete reversibility, and the rapid hospital discharge of the patient.1012 The therapeutic success of LAGB is strictly related to careful patient selection, the surgeon’s experience, and the overall management by a multidisciplinary team (surgeon, nutritionist, endocrinologist, and psychiatrist).13

The international literature reports specific postoperative complications after LAGB as major complications (early and late: acute slippage of the gastric wall, irreversible pouch dilatation, esophageal dilatation with dysphagia, and intragastric band migration) and minor complications (subcutaneous port infections, leaks, disconnections of the port-catheter system, and port twist). The incidence of these complications ranges between 0% and 31%, leading to a mean reoperative rate of 7.4%,14,15 which can increase to a maximum of 58% in some series.13,1634

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the incidence of postoperative complications after LAGB and possible causes and management with a minimally invasive approach. 

Between January 1996 and July 2003, 313 consecutive morbidly obese patients underwent LAGB, according to the perigastric technique described by Cadiere et al10 or the approach “through pars flaccida” in the last 72 patients. Forty-seven patients (39 women and 8 men; mean age, 41.6 years), who developed post-LAGB complications, were the subjects of the study. The mean BMI pre-LAGB was 46.1 (range, 36-59). Forty-one patients had major or minor complications, and 6 had psychological problems and requested the removal of the band in absence of any surgical complication. At reoperation, the mean BMI of the patients with major complications was 35.5. Causes of reoperation are reported in Table 1.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Causes of Reoperation After Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding

A total of 43 reoperations were performed. Thirty-eight reoperations were performed using general anesthesia; of these, 36 were performed laparoscopically. Five reoperations were performed using local anesthesia, in ambulatory or in “1-day surgery” settings. Intraoperative upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed during 12 reoperations.

The incidence of major complications was 8.3%, and all but 1 occurred during the learning-curve period (1-50 patients). The multidisciplinary selection allowed earlier detection of band-related complications and improved patients’ compliance.

MAJOR COMPLICATIONS (GROUP A)
Irreversible Gastric Pouch Dilatation

The diagnosis was suspected on the basis of symptoms (vomiting, food intolerance) and confirmed by radiological examination in 10 patients (Figure 1). Mean BMI was 50.9 before surgery and 36.9 at the moment of diagnosis. All cases were initially treated conservatively with a nasogastric tube, intravenous proton pump inhibitors (40 mg of omeprazol), and metoclopramide hydrochloride (30 mg intravenously 3 times a day). After 2 to 21 days, reoperation was performed.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Gastric pouch dilatation (megulmine diatrizoate swallow radiograph).

Graphic Jump Location

Two acute slippages (postoperative day 2 and 8) and 8 long-term dilatations (up to 12 months postoperative) occurred. In 9 cases, the band was removed laparoscopically (1 conversion) (mean operative time, 70 minutes); in 1 case, the band was repositioned but eventually removed after 12 months because of irreversible pouch dilatation (BMI, 29).

Intragastric Band Migration

Diagnosis was established by routine endoscopic examination an average of 26.4 months after surgery. The barium swallow radiography results were positive only when more than 50% of the prosthesis migrated into the gastric cavity, creating the “double lumen effect” (Figure 2). Ten patients were symptom free; 5 of them had a “spy” port infection, and only 1 had melena. The concomitant 5 “spontaneous” late port infections appeared 5 to 40 months after surgery.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Intragastric migration (megulmine diatrizoate swallow radiograph).

Graphic Jump Location

Sixteen reoperations, after a mean interval of 11.4 months (range, 1-32) since diagnosis, were carried out. The mean BMI of these patients was 48.2 before surgery, 35.5 at the endoscopic diagnosis of erosion, and 35.1 when the prosthesis was removed. Body mass index evolution in these patients is shown in Figure 3.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Body mass index (BMI) evolution in patients with intragastric migration, from gastric banding to reoperation. The symbols differentiate each BMI curve.

Graphic Jump Location

The prosthesis removal was performed with 4 different modalities:

(1) Open surgery (1 case).

(2) Intragastric approach with flexible endoscope assistance (2 steps) (4 cases). To promote complete intragastric migration, the gastric wall covering the ring was cut during 2 endoscopic outpatient sessions, using monopolar electrocautery or an argon plasma scalpel. Then, the surgical procedure (after a mean observation interval of 6.5 months) was initiated with intraoperative upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to complete the cutting of the gastric wall covering the ring. Afterward, a minilaparotomy (5 cm) was performed at the level of the access port, and the reservoir was removed. A 1.5-cm anterior wall gastrotomy was performed to remove the band, using flexible endoscopy assistance. The gastrotomy was sutured and checked endoscopically. The mean operative time was 82 minutes; the postoperative course was complicated by 1 colonic fistula, successfully managed with drainage, antibiotics, and total parenteral nutrition in 4 weeks.

(3) Intragastric approach with flexible endoscopy assistance (1 step) (4 cases). The anterior abdominal wall was incised (5 cm) in the left subcostal area, and the reservoir was exposed and removed. Through the same incision, the anterior gastric wall was exposed. Two 5-mm trocars were introduced into the gastric lumen, using endoscopic assistance. The prosthesis was cut using an ultrasound scalpel or scissors and gently pulled into the gastric cavity and then out through a 1.5-cm gastrotomy. The gastrotomy was sutured and checked endoscopically. In 1 case, the “hand-assisted” technique was used. The patient was discharged from the hospital after 12 days.

There were 2 wound infections. The mean operative time in this group was 88 minutes, with a mean hospital stay of 5 days.

(4) Laparoscopic approach (7 cases). Using 3 trocars, a gastrotomy was created where the prosthesis eroded the gastric wall, followed by section and removal of the band. Mean operative time was 52 minutes, with a hospital stay of 2 days. After band removal, 6 patients received an intragastric balloon (BIB; BioEnterics) (mean BMI, 31.5). The other patients refused further surgical treatment.

MINOR COMPLICATIONS (GROUP B)

There were 5 port infections; 4 of them were successfully treated conservatively. In 1 case, the port was removed and substituted 6 months later.

In 6 cases, there were problems with the catheter-port system: 4 disconnections and 2 twists. In 4 cases, the port was substituted using local anesthesia (Figure 4); in 2 cases with intraperitoneal disconnection (Figure 5), the tube was reconnected laparoscopically.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Subcutaneous tube disconnection (radiograph).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 5.

Intraperitoneal tube disconnection (arrow) (radiograph).

Graphic Jump Location
PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS (GROUP C)

The psychiatric diagnosis of “psychological discomfort” related to the prosthesis led to laparoscopic band removal after a mean period of 27.8 months. All 6 patients had had a preoperative psychological evaluation, without any evidence of major psychiatric disorders. All patients were discharged from the hospital after 2 days. None of them had any further treatment for their morbid obesity.

INSUFFICIENT WEIGHT LOSS (GROUP D)

Four patients, who had undergone previous LAGB, underwent surgical revision for insufficient weight loss and/or failure to maintain an initially satisfactory loss. All cases were revised laparoscopically, 3 of them with a subsequent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. One patient, with a pre-LAGB BMI of 40, at routine follow-up had upper gastrointestinal endoscopy intragastric band migration. The band was removed, and after 1 year (BMI, 30.5), the patient was rebanded.

Our results are summarized in Table 2 for each group of patients. The overall conversion rate was 5.2% (2/38). The perioperative mortality was 0%. The overall 30-day morbidity was 7.9%: 2 wound infections and 1 colonic fistula (3/38). The mean hospital stay of the patients treated by laparoscopy was 3.7 days.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Management of Postoperative Complications

The incidence of postoperative complications after LAGB ranges between 0% and 31%. These complications can lead to a mean reoperation rate of 2.0% to 40.0%.12 Cottam et al12 reported an overall band removal, due to different causes, of 11%.

The evolution of the laparoscopic techniques permitted a significant reduction of specific complications. The incidence of gastric dilatation has been significantly reduced by confectioning the retrogastric tunnel over the bursa omentalis, the prosthesis fixation, with 3 to 4 gastro-gastric stitches and the reduction of the gastric pouch volume (15-20 cm3).19,22,29,31,35 The problems related to the subcutaneous reservoir were minimized by the new port system (low profile) and by following the technique suggested by Furbetta and coli.36 Early postoperative band filling might be associated with an increase of postoperative complications (stoma stenosis, pouch and/or esophageal dilatation), according to a recent Italian study.37 The intragastric band migration needs a more appropriate evaluation. The absence of specific clinical signs may explain the low incidence reported in the literature (0.5%36 to 10.5%35). Routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in the follow-up permitted the diagnosis in the symptom-free cases and explains the higher incidence of this complication in the present series (5.1%).

From January 1996 to July 2003, we performed 313 LAGBs, always with the same surgical team. The incidence of major complications during the reoperations was 8.3% and minor complications, 2.2%.

The international literature does not suggest guidelines for the management of postoperative complications that require a reoperation, nor for the early diagnosis, timing, and/or safest and most effective approach. Furthermore, it has been reported that the rate of complications in reoperations is high.26 The results of the present study show that laparoscopy is safe and effective in the management of specific LAGB complications, and some recommendations can be addressed.

In the case of irreversible gastric pouch dilatation, the reintervention is mandatory. Furbetta and Coli36 and Peterli et al27 reported the conditions for a successful removal/repositioning of the band. Laparoscopy performed after 2 to 7 days is effective in 90% of the cases; repositioning or removing the band is related to the conditions of the gastric wall, the dimensions and type of dilatation (anterior or posterior), and the patient’s request. Repositioning the band in a second intervention may be an alternative by creating a retrogastric tunnel through the pars flaccida. Delaying reoperation more than 7 days after onset of the pouch dilatation may cause gastric wall necrosis.

The interval between surgery and the diagnosis of intragastric prosthesis migration ranges between 12 and 36 months. Early diagnosis is established only by endoscopy; therefore, a regular follow-up schedule (routine endoscopy every 12 months) is extremely important. Prosthesis migration does not represent a surgical emergency, and it is therefore very important to plan the best strategy to achieve a minimally invasive treatment.3840 We suggest that the best time for removal is when 50% of the prosthesis has migrated intragastrically (including the closure system). Intraoperative cooperation with the endoscopist may be very useful. Following these guidelines, this minimally invasive approach was successful in 90% of the cases.

Minor complications were managed in the hospital’s outpatient clinic or in the 1-day surgery setting; in the case of late port infection, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is mandatory. Early diagnosis of subcutaneous connecting tube leakage may prevent dislocation in the peritoneal cavity, avoiding reoperation using general anesthesia.

When psychological problems are present, patients may ask for band removal, even in the absence of any surgical complication. A psychiatrist’s evaluation and extensive discussion with the patient is mandatory. A more discriminatory preoperative selection of patients decreases the incidence of these problems. All of our cases occurred during the learning-curve period (first 50 cases).

Gagner et al41 and Weiner et al42 reported favorable results of the laparoscopic “redo” surgery. All our reoperations for insufficient weight loss were successfully performed laparoscopically.

The results of this study demonstrate that the multidisciplinary team’s experience in patient selection and follow-up, combined with the standardization of the laparoscopic procedure, play a major role in prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment of the specific postoperative complications after LAGB. A minimally invasive approach (laparoscopy and/or endoscopy) seemed to be safe and effective in the treatment of more than 90% of the postoperative complications requiring a reintervention.

Correspondence: Gianfranco Silecchia, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery “Paride Stefanini,” Seventh Surgical Clinic, Policlinico Umberto I, Università “La Sapienza” Roma, Viale Policlinico 155, 00161 Rome, Italy (gianfranco.silecchia@uniroma1.it).

Accepted for Publication: June 1, 2004.

Previous Presentation: This study was presented at the Ninth National and First International Congress of SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and New Technologies); September 22, 2003; Sorrento, Italy.

World Health Organization, World Health Report. Life in the 21st Century: A Vision for All.  Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization1998;
World Health Organization, World Health Report. Health System: Improving Performance.  Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization2000;
World Health Organization, Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic. Report of a WHO Consultation on Obesity, Geneva 3-5 June 1997 Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization1998;
Bjorntorp  P Obesity. Lancet 1997;350423- 426
PubMed Link to Article
National Heart Lung and Blood Institute,NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative Expert Panel, Clinical Guidelines on Identification, Evaluation and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults: The Evidence Report.  Bethesda, Md National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative Expert Panel1998;28
Hell  EMiller  KA Comparison of vertical banded gastroplasty and adjustable silicone gastric banding. Deitel  MCowan  GSMedsUpdate Surgery for the Morbid Obese Patient Toronto, Ontario FD-Communication Inc2000;379- 386
Grundy  SM Multifactor causation of obesity: implication for prevention. Am J Clin Nutr 1998;67 ((suppl 3)) 563S- 572S
PubMed
Ceelen  WWalzer  JCardon  A  et al.  Surgical treatment of severe obesity with a low-pressure adjustable gastric band: experimental data and clinical results in 625 patients. Ann Surg 2003;23710- 16
PubMed Link to Article
Forsell  PHallberg  DHellers  G Gastric banding for morbid obesity: initial experience with a new adjustable band. Obes Surg 1993;3369- 374
PubMed Link to Article
Cadiere  GBBruyns  JHimpens  JFavretti  F Laparoscopic gastroplasty for morbid obesity. Br J Surg 1994;811524
PubMed Link to Article
Belachew  MLegrand  MJDefeschereux  TH  et al.  Laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding in the treatment of morbid obesity. Surg Endosc 1994;81354- 1356
PubMed Link to Article
Cottam  DRMattar  SGSchauer  PR Laparoscopic era of operations for morbid obesity. Arch Surg 2003;138367- 375
PubMed Link to Article
American Society for Bariatric Surgery, Guidelines for laparoscopic and open surgical treatment of morbid obesity. Obes Surg 2000;10378- 379
PubMed Link to Article
Oelschlager  BPellegrini  C Advances in the surgical treatment of obesity:Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopical Surgeons (SAGES) Annual Scientific Session and Postgraduate Course, March 2003, Los Angeles, USA. [Medscape Gastroenterology Web site] Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/451082?src=search
Vertruyen  M Repositioning the lap band for proximal pouch dilatation. Obes Surg 2003;13285- 288
PubMed Link to Article
Miller  KHell  E Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a prospective 4-year follow-up study. Obes Surg 1999;9183- 187
PubMed Link to Article
Abu-Abeid  SSzold  A Results and complications of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: an early and intermediate experience. Obes Surg 1999;9188- 190
PubMed Link to Article
Westling  ABjurling  KOhrvall  M  et al.  Silicone adjustable gastric banding: disappointing results. Obes Surg 1998;8467- 474
PubMed Link to Article
Dargent  J Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: lessons from the first 500 patients in a single institution. Obes Surg 1999;9446- 452
PubMed Link to Article
Doldi  SBMicheletto  GLattuada  E  et al.  Adjustable gastric banding: 5-year experience. Obes Surg 2000;10171- 173
PubMed Link to Article
Oria  HE Silicone gastric banding for morbid obesity: a systematic review [abstract]. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1999;11105- 114
PubMed Link to Article
Favretti  FCadiere  GBSegato  G  et al.  Laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding (LAP-BAND): how to avoid complications. Obes Surg 1997;7352- 358
PubMed Link to Article
Silecchia  GRestuccia  AElmore  U  et al.  Laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding: prospective evaluation of intragastric migration of the LAP-BAND. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2001;11229- 234
PubMed Link to Article
Morino  MToppino  MGarrone  G Disappointing long-term results of laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding. Br J Surg 1997;84868- 869
PubMed Link to Article
Chelala  ECadiere  GBFavretti  F  et al.  Conversion and complications in 185 laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding. Surg Endosc 1997;11268- 271
PubMed Link to Article
Gustavsson  SWestling  A Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: complications and side effects for the poor long-term outcome. Semin Laparosc Surg 2002;9115- 124
PubMed Link to Article
Peterli  RDonadini  APeters  T  et al.  Reoperations following laparoscopical adjustable gastric banding. Obes Surg 2002;12851- 856
PubMed Link to Article
Zinzindohoue  FChevalier  JMDouard  R  et al.  Laparoscopic gastric banding:a minimal invasive surgical treatment of morbid obesity. Ann Surg 2003;2371- 9
PubMed Link to Article
O’Brien  PEDixon  JB Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding in the treatment of morbid obesity. Arch Surg 2003;138376- 382
PubMed Link to Article
Doherty  CMaher  JWHeitshusen  DS Long-term data indicate a progressive loss in efficacy of adjustable silicone gastric banding for the surgical treatment of morbid obesity. Surgery 2002;132724- 727
PubMed Link to Article
Steffen  RBiertho  LRicklin  T  et al.  Laparoscopic Swedish adjustable gastric banding: a five-year prospective study. Obes Surg 2003;13404- 411
PubMed Link to Article
Nehoda  HWeiss  HLabeck  B  et al.  Results and complications after adjustable gastric banding in a series of 250 patients. Am J Surg 2001;18112- 15
PubMed Link to Article
Ponson  AEJanssen  IMKlinkenbijl  JH Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a prospective comparison of two commonly used bands. Obes Surg 2002;12579- 582
PubMed Link to Article
Mittermair  RPWeiss  HNehoda  H  et al.  Laparoscopic Swedish adjustable gastric banding: 6-year follow-up and comparison to other laparoscopic bariatric procedures. Obes Surg 2003;13412- 417
PubMed Link to Article
Suter  MGiusti  VHéraief  E  et al.  Laparoscopic gastric banding: beyond the learning curve. Surg Endosc 2003;171418- 1425
PubMed Link to Article
Furbetta  FColi  E Codification of techniques for reoperation after LAP-BAND. Obes Surg 2003;13289- 293
PubMed Link to Article
Busetto  LSegato  GDeMarchi  F  et al.  Postoperative management of laparoscopical gastric banding. Obes Surg 2003;13121- 127
PubMed Link to Article
Biagini  J Intragastric band erosion. Obes Surg 2001;11100
PubMed Link to Article
Mittermair  RPWeiss  HNehoda  HAigner  F Uncommon intragastric migration of the Swedish adjustable gastric band. Obes Surg 2002;12372- 375
PubMed Link to Article
Niville  EDams  AVlasselaers  J LAP-BAND erosion: incidence and treatment. Obes Surg 2001;11744- 747
PubMed Link to Article
Gagner  MGentileschi  Pde Csepel  J  et al.  Laparoscopic reoperative bariatric surgery: experience from 27 consecutive patients. Obes Surg 2002;12254- 260
PubMed Link to Article
Weiner  RBlanco-Engert  RWeiner  SMatkowitz  RSchaefer  LPomhoff  L Outcome after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: 8 years experience. Obes Surg 2003;13427- 434
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Gastric pouch dilatation (megulmine diatrizoate swallow radiograph).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Intragastric migration (megulmine diatrizoate swallow radiograph).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Body mass index (BMI) evolution in patients with intragastric migration, from gastric banding to reoperation. The symbols differentiate each BMI curve.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Subcutaneous tube disconnection (radiograph).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 5.

Intraperitoneal tube disconnection (arrow) (radiograph).

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Causes of Reoperation After Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Management of Postoperative Complications

References

World Health Organization, World Health Report. Life in the 21st Century: A Vision for All.  Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization1998;
World Health Organization, World Health Report. Health System: Improving Performance.  Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization2000;
World Health Organization, Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic. Report of a WHO Consultation on Obesity, Geneva 3-5 June 1997 Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization1998;
Bjorntorp  P Obesity. Lancet 1997;350423- 426
PubMed Link to Article
National Heart Lung and Blood Institute,NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative Expert Panel, Clinical Guidelines on Identification, Evaluation and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults: The Evidence Report.  Bethesda, Md National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative Expert Panel1998;28
Hell  EMiller  KA Comparison of vertical banded gastroplasty and adjustable silicone gastric banding. Deitel  MCowan  GSMedsUpdate Surgery for the Morbid Obese Patient Toronto, Ontario FD-Communication Inc2000;379- 386
Grundy  SM Multifactor causation of obesity: implication for prevention. Am J Clin Nutr 1998;67 ((suppl 3)) 563S- 572S
PubMed
Ceelen  WWalzer  JCardon  A  et al.  Surgical treatment of severe obesity with a low-pressure adjustable gastric band: experimental data and clinical results in 625 patients. Ann Surg 2003;23710- 16
PubMed Link to Article
Forsell  PHallberg  DHellers  G Gastric banding for morbid obesity: initial experience with a new adjustable band. Obes Surg 1993;3369- 374
PubMed Link to Article
Cadiere  GBBruyns  JHimpens  JFavretti  F Laparoscopic gastroplasty for morbid obesity. Br J Surg 1994;811524
PubMed Link to Article
Belachew  MLegrand  MJDefeschereux  TH  et al.  Laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding in the treatment of morbid obesity. Surg Endosc 1994;81354- 1356
PubMed Link to Article
Cottam  DRMattar  SGSchauer  PR Laparoscopic era of operations for morbid obesity. Arch Surg 2003;138367- 375
PubMed Link to Article
American Society for Bariatric Surgery, Guidelines for laparoscopic and open surgical treatment of morbid obesity. Obes Surg 2000;10378- 379
PubMed Link to Article
Oelschlager  BPellegrini  C Advances in the surgical treatment of obesity:Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopical Surgeons (SAGES) Annual Scientific Session and Postgraduate Course, March 2003, Los Angeles, USA. [Medscape Gastroenterology Web site] Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/451082?src=search
Vertruyen  M Repositioning the lap band for proximal pouch dilatation. Obes Surg 2003;13285- 288
PubMed Link to Article
Miller  KHell  E Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a prospective 4-year follow-up study. Obes Surg 1999;9183- 187
PubMed Link to Article
Abu-Abeid  SSzold  A Results and complications of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: an early and intermediate experience. Obes Surg 1999;9188- 190
PubMed Link to Article
Westling  ABjurling  KOhrvall  M  et al.  Silicone adjustable gastric banding: disappointing results. Obes Surg 1998;8467- 474
PubMed Link to Article
Dargent  J Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: lessons from the first 500 patients in a single institution. Obes Surg 1999;9446- 452
PubMed Link to Article
Doldi  SBMicheletto  GLattuada  E  et al.  Adjustable gastric banding: 5-year experience. Obes Surg 2000;10171- 173
PubMed Link to Article
Oria  HE Silicone gastric banding for morbid obesity: a systematic review [abstract]. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1999;11105- 114
PubMed Link to Article
Favretti  FCadiere  GBSegato  G  et al.  Laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding (LAP-BAND): how to avoid complications. Obes Surg 1997;7352- 358
PubMed Link to Article
Silecchia  GRestuccia  AElmore  U  et al.  Laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding: prospective evaluation of intragastric migration of the LAP-BAND. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2001;11229- 234
PubMed Link to Article
Morino  MToppino  MGarrone  G Disappointing long-term results of laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding. Br J Surg 1997;84868- 869
PubMed Link to Article
Chelala  ECadiere  GBFavretti  F  et al.  Conversion and complications in 185 laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding. Surg Endosc 1997;11268- 271
PubMed Link to Article
Gustavsson  SWestling  A Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: complications and side effects for the poor long-term outcome. Semin Laparosc Surg 2002;9115- 124
PubMed Link to Article
Peterli  RDonadini  APeters  T  et al.  Reoperations following laparoscopical adjustable gastric banding. Obes Surg 2002;12851- 856
PubMed Link to Article
Zinzindohoue  FChevalier  JMDouard  R  et al.  Laparoscopic gastric banding:a minimal invasive surgical treatment of morbid obesity. Ann Surg 2003;2371- 9
PubMed Link to Article
O’Brien  PEDixon  JB Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding in the treatment of morbid obesity. Arch Surg 2003;138376- 382
PubMed Link to Article
Doherty  CMaher  JWHeitshusen  DS Long-term data indicate a progressive loss in efficacy of adjustable silicone gastric banding for the surgical treatment of morbid obesity. Surgery 2002;132724- 727
PubMed Link to Article
Steffen  RBiertho  LRicklin  T  et al.  Laparoscopic Swedish adjustable gastric banding: a five-year prospective study. Obes Surg 2003;13404- 411
PubMed Link to Article
Nehoda  HWeiss  HLabeck  B  et al.  Results and complications after adjustable gastric banding in a series of 250 patients. Am J Surg 2001;18112- 15
PubMed Link to Article
Ponson  AEJanssen  IMKlinkenbijl  JH Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a prospective comparison of two commonly used bands. Obes Surg 2002;12579- 582
PubMed Link to Article
Mittermair  RPWeiss  HNehoda  H  et al.  Laparoscopic Swedish adjustable gastric banding: 6-year follow-up and comparison to other laparoscopic bariatric procedures. Obes Surg 2003;13412- 417
PubMed Link to Article
Suter  MGiusti  VHéraief  E  et al.  Laparoscopic gastric banding: beyond the learning curve. Surg Endosc 2003;171418- 1425
PubMed Link to Article
Furbetta  FColi  E Codification of techniques for reoperation after LAP-BAND. Obes Surg 2003;13289- 293
PubMed Link to Article
Busetto  LSegato  GDeMarchi  F  et al.  Postoperative management of laparoscopical gastric banding. Obes Surg 2003;13121- 127
PubMed Link to Article
Biagini  J Intragastric band erosion. Obes Surg 2001;11100
PubMed Link to Article
Mittermair  RPWeiss  HNehoda  HAigner  F Uncommon intragastric migration of the Swedish adjustable gastric band. Obes Surg 2002;12372- 375
PubMed Link to Article
Niville  EDams  AVlasselaers  J LAP-BAND erosion: incidence and treatment. Obes Surg 2001;11744- 747
PubMed Link to Article
Gagner  MGentileschi  Pde Csepel  J  et al.  Laparoscopic reoperative bariatric surgery: experience from 27 consecutive patients. Obes Surg 2002;12254- 260
PubMed Link to Article
Weiner  RBlanco-Engert  RWeiner  SMatkowitz  RSchaefer  LPomhoff  L Outcome after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: 8 years experience. Obes Surg 2003;13427- 434
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 18

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles