4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Preoperative Weight Reduction Using the Intragastric Balloon

Journal

OBESITY FACTS
Volume 2, Issue -, Pages 20-23

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000198243

Keywords

Intragastric ballon; BioEnterics (R) Intragastric Balloon; BIB (R); Preoperative weight reduction; Bariatric surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Gastric balloon therapy (GBT) is a temporay, nonsurgical treatment for obesity. This retrospective study evaluates safety and efficacy of GBT in obese patients. Methods: The BioEnterics (R) Intragastric Balloon (BIB) was encloscopically implanted into each patient's stomach and inflated with saline (450-750 ml). Extraction was planned after 6 months. Data from 190 patients receiving GBT were evaluated. Mean weight was 168.4 +/- 58.9 kg (range 76.5-310.0) and mean BMI was 55.6 +/- 175kg/m(2) (range 27.0-95.7). Results: Mean weight loss at the time of balloon removal was 21.2 +/- 14.0 kg (range 0-80.0). The mean BMI loss and EBL (Excess BMI Loss) were 7.2 +/- 4.9 kg/m(2) (range 0-28.9) and 30.1 +/- 26.4% (0-184.4), respectively. The most substantial weight and BMI loss was observed in the most massively obese patients. Minor complications at implantation were encountered in 2 cases (1.1%) due to leakage of the balloon, and in 3 cases at explantation (1.6%). No mortality or major complications such as gastric perforation or ulcers occurred. Of the 190 patients, 76 received subsequent surgery (40.0%). Of those, 7 patients had a BMI < 50 kg/m(2) while all other patients where super-obese (BMI > 50 kg/m(2)). 58 patients (30.5%) with a BMI > 60 kg/m(2) which had an extraordinary high operation risk were able to receive subsequent surgical treatment because of a substantial weight loss and/or reduced comorbidity. Conclusion: GBT appears to be a safe, tolerable, and potentially effective procedure for the initial treatment of morbid obesity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available