Endoscopic Revision (StomaphyX) versus Formal Surgical Revision (Gastric Bypass) for Failed Vertical Band Gastroplasty
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 reg...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2013-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Obesity |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/108507 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832549983509807104 |
|---|---|
| author | Johan Bolton Richdeep S. Gill Akram Al-Jahdali Simon Byrns Xinzhe Shi Daniel W. Birch Shahzeer Karmali |
| author_facet | Johan Bolton Richdeep S. Gill Akram Al-Jahdali Simon Byrns Xinzhe Shi Daniel W. Birch Shahzeer Karmali |
| author_sort | Johan Bolton |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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/m2 to 35 ± 7 kg/m2; StomaphyX 43 ± 10 kg/m2 to 40 ± 9 kg/m2, 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-315d7ed9c353439f91e451df04e381ac |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-0708 2090-0716 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2013-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Obesity |
| spelling | doaj-art-315d7ed9c353439f91e451df04e381ac2025-02-03T06:07:56ZengWileyJournal of Obesity2090-07082090-07162013-01-01201310.1155/2013/108507108507Endoscopic Revision (StomaphyX) versus Formal Surgical Revision (Gastric Bypass) for Failed Vertical Band GastroplastyJohan Bolton0Richdeep S. Gill1Akram Al-Jahdali2Simon Byrns3Xinzhe Shi4Daniel W. Birch5Shahzeer Karmali6Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2B7, CanadaDepartment of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2B7, CanadaDepartment of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, CanadaFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2B7, CanadaCenter for the Advancement of Minimally Invasive Surgery (CAMIS), Community Services Center, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Room 405, 10240 Kingsway, Edmonton, AB, T5H 3V9, CanadaCenter for the Advancement of Minimally Invasive Surgery (CAMIS), Community Services Center, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Room 405, 10240 Kingsway, Edmonton, AB, T5H 3V9, CanadaCenter for the Advancement of Minimally Invasive Surgery (CAMIS), Community Services Center, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Room 405, 10240 Kingsway, Edmonton, AB, T5H 3V9, CanadaBackground. 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/m2 to 35 ± 7 kg/m2; StomaphyX 43 ± 10 kg/m2 to 40 ± 9 kg/m2, 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/108507 |
| spellingShingle | Johan Bolton Richdeep S. Gill Akram Al-Jahdali Simon Byrns Xinzhe Shi Daniel W. Birch Shahzeer Karmali Endoscopic Revision (StomaphyX) versus Formal Surgical Revision (Gastric Bypass) for Failed Vertical Band Gastroplasty Journal of Obesity |
| title | Endoscopic Revision (StomaphyX) versus Formal Surgical Revision (Gastric Bypass) for Failed Vertical Band Gastroplasty |
| title_full | Endoscopic Revision (StomaphyX) versus Formal Surgical Revision (Gastric Bypass) for Failed Vertical Band Gastroplasty |
| title_fullStr | Endoscopic Revision (StomaphyX) versus Formal Surgical Revision (Gastric Bypass) for Failed Vertical Band Gastroplasty |
| title_full_unstemmed | Endoscopic Revision (StomaphyX) versus Formal Surgical Revision (Gastric Bypass) for Failed Vertical Band Gastroplasty |
| title_short | Endoscopic Revision (StomaphyX) versus Formal Surgical Revision (Gastric Bypass) for Failed Vertical Band Gastroplasty |
| title_sort | endoscopic revision stomaphyx versus formal surgical revision gastric bypass for failed vertical band gastroplasty |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/108507 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT johanbolton endoscopicrevisionstomaphyxversusformalsurgicalrevisiongastricbypassforfailedverticalbandgastroplasty AT richdeepsgill endoscopicrevisionstomaphyxversusformalsurgicalrevisiongastricbypassforfailedverticalbandgastroplasty AT akramaljahdali endoscopicrevisionstomaphyxversusformalsurgicalrevisiongastricbypassforfailedverticalbandgastroplasty AT simonbyrns endoscopicrevisionstomaphyxversusformalsurgicalrevisiongastricbypassforfailedverticalbandgastroplasty AT xinzheshi endoscopicrevisionstomaphyxversusformalsurgicalrevisiongastricbypassforfailedverticalbandgastroplasty AT danielwbirch endoscopicrevisionstomaphyxversusformalsurgicalrevisiongastricbypassforfailedverticalbandgastroplasty AT shahzeerkarmali endoscopicrevisionstomaphyxversusformalsurgicalrevisiongastricbypassforfailedverticalbandgastroplasty |