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,Geraldine Ooi,Paul Burton,Cheryl Laurie,Shourye Dwivedi,YunFei Qiu,Richard Chen,Damien Loh,Peter Nottle,Wendy Brown
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-019-04168-w
2019-09-09
Obesity Surgery
Abstract:<h3 class="Heading">Background</h3><p class="Para">Comparisons of bariatric procedures across a range of outcomes are required to better inform selection of procedures and optimally allocate health care resources.</p><h3 class="Heading">Aims</h3><p class="Para">To determine differences in outcomes between laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) across nine outcome domains.</p><h3 class="Heading">Methods</h3><p class="Para">Matched primary LSG or LAGB across age, weight and surgery date were recruited. Data were collected from a prospective database and patient-completed questionnaires.</p><h3 class="Heading">Results</h3><p class="Para">Patients (<em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">n</em> = 520) were well-matched (LAGB vs. LSG; age 41.8 ± 11.2 vs. 42.7 ± 11.7 years, <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">p</em> = 0.37; male 32.4% vs. 30.2%, <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">p</em> = 0.57; baseline weight 131.2 ± 30.5 vs. 131.0 ± 31.1 kg, <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">p</em> = 0.94). Follow-up rate was 95% at a mean of 4.8 years. LAGB attended more follow-up visits (21 vs. 13, <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">p</em> &lt; 0.05). Mean total body weight loss was 27.7 ± 11.7% vs. 19.4 ± 11.1% (LSG vs. LAGB, <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">p</em> &lt; 0.001). LAGB had more complications (23.8% vs. 10.8%, <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">p</em> &lt; 0.001), re-operations (89 vs. 13, <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">p</em> &lt; 0.001) and readmissions (87 vs. 32, <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">p</em> &lt; 0.001). However, early post-operative complications were higher post-LSG (2.6 vs. 9.2%, <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">p</em> = 0.007). Length of stay (LOS) was higher post-LSG compared with LAGB (5.2 ± 10.9 vs. 1.5 ± 2.2 days, <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">p</em> &lt; 0.001). LSG patients reported better quality of life (SF-36 physical component score 54.7 ± 7.9 vs. 47.7 ± 10.8, <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">p</em> = 0.002) and satisfaction (9.2 ± 1.9 vs. 8.4 ± 1.6, <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">p</em> = 0.001) and less frequent regurgitation (1.2 ± 1.2 vs. 0.7 ± − 1.1, <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">p</em> = 0.032) and dysphagia (2.0 ± 1.3 vs. 1.3 ± 1.6, <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">p</em> = 0.007).</p><h3 class="Heading">Conclusion</h3><p class="Para">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.</p>
surgery
What problem does this paper attempt to address?