Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2020 Jan;30(1):214-223.
doi: 10.1007/s11695-019-04168-w.

Long-Term Matched Comparison of Adjustable Gastric Banding Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy: Weight Loss, Quality of Life, Hospital Resource Use and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Long-Term Matched Comparison of Adjustable Gastric Banding Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy: Weight Loss, Quality of Life, Hospital Resource Use and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Yazmin Johari et al. Obes Surg. 2020 Jan.

Abstract

Background: Comparisons of bariatric procedures across a range of outcomes are required to better inform selection of procedures and optimally allocate health care resources.

Aims: To determine differences in outcomes between laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) across nine outcome domains.

Methods: Matched primary LSG or LAGB across age, weight and surgery date were recruited. Data were collected from a prospective database and patient-completed questionnaires.

Results: Patients (n = 520) were well-matched (LAGB vs. LSG; age 41.8 ± 11.2 vs. 42.7 ± 11.7 years, p = 0.37; male 32.4% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.57; baseline weight 131.2 ± 30.5 vs. 131.0 ± 31.1 kg, p = 0.94). Follow-up rate was 95% at a mean of 4.8 years. LAGB attended more follow-up visits (21 vs. 13, p < 0.05). Mean total body weight loss was 27.7 ± 11.7% vs. 19.4 ± 11.1% (LSG vs. LAGB, p < 0.001). LAGB had more complications (23.8% vs. 10.8%, p < 0.001), re-operations (89 vs. 13, p < 0.001) and readmissions (87 vs. 32, p < 0.001). However, early post-operative complications were higher post-LSG (2.6 vs. 9.2%, p = 0.007). Length of stay (LOS) was higher post-LSG compared with LAGB (5.2 ± 10.9 vs. 1.5 ± 2.2 days, p < 0.001). LSG patients reported better quality of life (SF-36 physical component score 54.7 ± 7.9 vs. 47.7 ± 10.8, p = 0.002) and satisfaction (9.2 ± 1.9 vs. 8.4 ± 1.6, p = 0.001) and less frequent regurgitation (1.2 ± 1.2 vs. 0.7 ± - 1.1, p = 0.032) and dysphagia (2.0 ± 1.3 vs. 1.3 ± 1.6, p = 0.007).

Conclusion: This study showed high long-term follow-up rates in a large cohort of well-matched patients. Weight loss was greater with LSG. LAGB reported more re-operations and less satisfaction with the outcome. LOS was driven by patients with complications. This study has reinforced the need for comprehensive measurement of outcomes in bariatric surgery.

Keywords: Bariatric; Laparoscopic gastric band; Outcome; Public.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2014 Mar-Apr;8(2):e115-200 - PubMed
    1. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Aug 08;(8):CD003641 - PubMed
    1. Obes Surg. 2006 Nov;16(11):1450-6 - PubMed
    1. JAMA. 2012 Sep 19;308(11):1122-31 - PubMed
    1. Am J Surg. 2016 Jan;211(1):250-67 - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources