ERA

Download the full-sized PDF of Endoscopic Revision (StomaphyX) versus Formal Surgical Revision (Gastric Bypass) for Failed Vertical Band GastroplastyDownload the full-sized PDF

Analytics

Share

Permanent link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.7939/R3X34MT8V

Download

Export to: EndNote  |  Zotero  |  Mendeley

Communities

This file is in the following communities:

Surgery, Department of

Collections

This file is in the following collections:

General Surgery

Endoscopic Revision (StomaphyX) versus Formal Surgical Revision (Gastric Bypass) for Failed Vertical Band Gastroplasty Open Access

Descriptions

Author or creator
Bolton, Johan
Gill, Richdeep S.
Al-Jahdali, Akram
Byrns, Simon
Shi, Xinzhe
Birch, Daniel W.
Karmali, Shahzeer
Additional contributors
Subject/Keyword
Endoscopic revision (StomaphyX)
Clinical studies
Surgical revision (Gastric Bypass)
Failed vertical band gastroplasty
Type of item
Journal Article (Published)
Language
English
Place
Time
Description
Background: Weight regain secondary to VBG pouch dilation is a typical referral for Bariatric surgeons. In this study we compare an endoluminal pouch reduction (Stomaphyx) to RYGB for revision. Methods: A retrospective review was completed for patients with a previous VBG presenting with weight regain between 2003-2010. Results: Thirty patients were identified for study 23 RYGB, 14 StomaphyX. Significant post procedure BMI loss was seen in each cohort (RYGB, 47.7 ± 7 kg/m(2) to 35 ± 7 kg/m(2); StomaphyX 43 ± 10 kg/m(2) to 40 ± 9 kg/m(2), P = 0.0007). Whereas nausea and headache were the only complications observed in StomaphyX patients, the RYGB group had a 43.5% complication rate and 1 mortality. Complications following RYGB include: incisional hernia (13%), anastomotic leak (8.7%), respiratory failure (8.7%), fistula (8.7%), and perforation (4.35%). The median length of stay following RYGB was 6 days compared to 1.5 ± 0.5 days following StomaphyX. Conclusion: This study suggests that while RYGB revision may achieve greater weight loss, the complication rates and severity is discouraging. StomaphyX may be a safe alternative. Further technical modifications of the device and longer follow-up may clarify the role of this approach.
Date created
2013
DOI
doi:10.7939/R3X34MT8V
License information
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
Rights

Citation for previous publication
Johan Bolton, Richdeep S. Gill, Akram Al-Jahdali, et al., “Endoscopic Revision (StomaphyX) versus Formal Surgical Revision (Gastric Bypass) for Failed Vertical Band Gastroplasty,” Journal of Obesity, vol. 2013, Article ID 108507, 4 pages, 2013. doi:10.1155/2013/108507
Source
Link to related item

File Details

Date Uploaded
Date Modified
2014-04-28T21:25:27.069+00:00
Audit Status
Audits have not yet been run on this file.
Characterization
File format: pdf (Portable Document Format)
Mime type: application/pdf
File size: 564861
Last modified: 2015:10:12 17:13:51-06:00
Filename: Bolton and Gill.pdf
Original checksum: 956d2a0f200b6deb11b8a3a46775819d
Well formed: false
Valid: false
Status message: Unexpected error in findFonts java.lang.ClassCastException: edu.harvard.hul.ois.jhove.module.pdf.PdfSimpleObject cannot be cast to edu.harvard.hul.ois.jhove.module.pdf.PdfDictionary offset=2897
Page count: 4
Activity of users you follow
User Activity Date