4.3 Article

Predictability of Outcome in Laparoscopic Gastric Banding

Journal

OBESITY FACTS
Volume 2, Issue -, Pages 27-30

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000198246

Keywords

Gastric banding; Morbid obesity; Outcome predictors; Preoperative selection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The success rate of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in the treatment of morbid obesity is very variable. A reasonable preoperative selection of eligible patients seems to be important for a successful outcome of LAGB. In the present study, criteria were investigated to predict the outcome of LAGB. Methods: 85 morbidly obese patients were operated with LAGB between 1999 and 2005. 71 of these patients were analysed according to several possible predictive parameters of success or failure of LAGB. Success was defined as excess body weight loss (EBWL) > 50% without band removal, failure was defined as EBWL < 20% and/or band removal. Median follow-up was 27 months (range 8-90 months). Results: After LAGB a median EBWL of 43% (-41 to 171.5%) was observed in all patients with a decrease in BMI of 8.0 kg/m(2) (-9 to 35 kg/m2). The success rate after LAGB was 37%, the failure rate 19.7%. Female sex (p = 0.023), baseline weight (p = 0.024), and eating behaviour after LAGB (p = 0.008) were significant predictors of success following LAGB, whereas complications such as port dislocation and reoperation after LAGB did not have a significant impact on a successful course following LAGB. Significant predictors of failure were male sex (p = 0.038) and missing physical activity after LAGB (p = 0.045), whereas the eating behaviour did not have a significant effect concerning failure following LAGB. Baseline excess body weight (EBW) was identified as an independent predictor of failure in a multivariate analysis. Conclusion: According to the results of this study, female patients with a lower EBW who improve their postoperative eating behaviour have the best chance of success following LAGB,

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