↓ Skip to main content

Revision of failed primary adjustable gastric banding to mini-gastric bypass: results in 48 consecutive patients

Overview of attention for article published in Updates in Surgery, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Revision of failed primary adjustable gastric banding to mini-gastric bypass: results in 48 consecutive patients
Published in
Updates in Surgery, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13304-015-0335-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luigi Piazza, Carla Di Stefano, Francesco Ferrara, Angelo Bellia, Marco Vacante, Antonio Biondi

Abstract

Although laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been found to be a generally successful weight loss operation, many patients require revision for weight regain, mechanical complications or intolerance to restriction. We report our experience with laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (LMGB) as a revisional procedure for failed primary LAGB. From June 2007 to November 2012, 48 patients, who had undergone LAGB, underwent revisional surgery to LMGB. Patient demographics, reasons for band removal, interval between removal and LMGB, operative times, complications, change in comorbidities, and weight loss were collected. The revisions to a mini-gastric bypass (MGB) were completed laparoscopically in all cases except in four, when the MGB was deferred because of gastric tube damage. Mean age was 38 years (range 20-59) and BMI was 43.4 ± 4.2 kg/m(2); 82 % of patients were females. Revision was performed after a mean of 28.6 months. The mean hospital stay was 3.25 days. Within 60 days of the MGB, mortality and morbidity were nil. We observed a significant difference in mean BMI after 6 months' follow-up (P < 0.001). Diabetes remission was observed in 88 % of patients, apnea remission in 66 %, and hypertension remission in 66 % after LMGB (p < 0.001). Moreover, four patients with GERD were cured. All LAGB patients had positive outcomes after the conversion to MGB, with a mean gain of 1.7 points in the bariatric analysis and reporting outcome system questionnaire. Our results suggested that LMGB is a safe, feasible, effective and easy-to-perform revisional procedure for failed LAGB.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 20%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 19 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 45%
Unspecified 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 23 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,431,664
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Updates in Surgery
#457
of 641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,535
of 386,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Updates in Surgery
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 641 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.