Device-related reoperations after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding
Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is considered a relatively safe weight loss procedure with low morbidity. When complications occur, obstruction, erosion, and port malfunction require reoperation. We retrospectively reviewed our experience with 270 consecutive patients who underwent LA...
Saved in:
Published in | The American surgeon Vol. 71; no. 9; pp. 738 - 743 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , |
Format | Conference Proceeding Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Atlanta, GA
Southeastern Surgical Congress
01.09.2005
SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is considered a relatively safe weight loss procedure with low morbidity. When complications occur, obstruction, erosion, and port malfunction require reoperation. We retrospectively reviewed our experience with 270 consecutive patients who underwent LAGB. Device-related reoperations were performed in 26 (10%) patients. Reoperations were related to the band in 13, to port/tubing in 11, and related to both in 2 patients. Of the 15 band-related problems, it was removed in 5 (2%): slippage (3), intra-abdominal abscess (1), and during emergent operation for bleeding duodenal ulcer (1). Revision or immediate replacement was performed in 10 (4%): slippage (5), obstruction (4), and leak from the reservoir (1). Port/tubing problems were the reason for reoperations in 13 (5%): infection (5), crack at tubing-port connection (6), and port rotation (2). Port removal for infection was followed later by port replacement (average 9 months). Overall, slippage occurred in 8 (3%), obstruction in 4 (1.5%), leak from reservoir in 7 (3%), and infection in 5 (2%) patients. Fifteen device-related problems occurred during our first 100 cases and 12 subsequently (P = 0.057). Permanent LapBand loss was only 5 per cent, leading to overall rate of 95 per cent of LapBand preservation as a restrictive device. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0003-1348 1555-9823 |
DOI: | 10.1177/000313480507100909 |