Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Concomitant removal of gastric band and sleeve gastrectomy: analysis of outcomes and complications from the ACS-NSQIP database.
Ramly, Elie P; Alami, Ramzi S; Tamim, Hani; Kantar, Rami; Elias, Elias; Safadi, Bassem Y.
Afiliação
  • Ramly EP; Department of Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Lebanon, Beirut.
  • Alami RS; Department of Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Lebanon, Beirut.
  • Tamim H; Department of Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Lebanon, Beirut.
  • Kantar R; Department of Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Lebanon, Beirut.
  • Elias E; Department of Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Lebanon, Beirut.
  • Safadi BY; Department of Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Lebanon, Beirut. Electronic address: bs21@aub.edu.lb.
Surg Obes Relat Dis ; 12(5): 984-988, 2016 Jun.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27134199
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Conversion of adjustable gastric band to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is feasible, but multiple reports have indicated higher morbidity and staple line leak rates when this is performed as a single-stage procedure. The objective of this study is to compare the safety profile and outcomes of LSG with concomitant gastric band removal (LSG/GBR) versus LSG using the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP).

METHODS:

Using the ACS-NSQIP database (2010-2012), LSG cases were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 43775 and concomitant LSG/LGBR using CPT code 43775+(43772 or 43774). Baseline patient characteristics and perioperative variables including postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were retrieved. The primary endpoint was sepsis within 30 days. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were carried out.

RESULTS:

During the study period, 11,189 (96.9%) patients had LSG and 357 (3.1%) had LSG/GBR for a total of 11,546 patients. On bivariate analyses, the rate of sepsis was higher after LSG/GBR (1.68% versus .58%; P = .022), and the mean operative time was longer (124.6±52.3 versus 98.6±49.0 min; P<.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of postoperative mortality (.28% versus .08 %; P = .27) or that of other outcomes such as return to the operating room, wound infection, or venous thromboembolism. After multivariate analysis, the odds of developing postoperative sepsis remained significantly higher for patients undergoing LSG/GBR compared with LSG alone (odds ratio [OR] 3.32; confidence interval [CI] 1.41-7.84; P = .006).

CONCLUSION:

LSG/GBR can be performed with low morbidity and mortality. However, this procedure carries a higher rate of postoperative sepsis.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Gastroplastia / Laparoscopia / Gastrectomia Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Gastroplastia / Laparoscopia / Gastrectomia Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article