Cited by 107Bariatric Surgery and OutcomesMinimally Invasive Surgical TechniquesBody Contouring and Surgery

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: 10-year results of a prospective, randomized trial

Angrisani, Luigi, Cutolo, Pier Paolo, Formisano, Giampaolo, Nosso, Gabriella, Vitolo, Giuliana·2013·Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases

Abstract

Background There are few studies of long-term outcomes for either laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of patients randomly assigned to undergo LAGB or LRYGB at 10 years.Methods LAGB, using the pars flaccida technique, and standard LRYGB were performed. From January 2000 to November 2000, 51 patients (mean age 34.0 ± 8.9 years; range 20-49) were randomly allocated to undergo either LAGB (n = 27, 5 men and 22 women; mean age 33.3 years; mean weight 120 kg; mean body mass index [BMI] 43.4 kg/m(2)) or LRYGB (n = 24, 4 men and 20 women; mean age 34.7; mean weight 120 kg; mean BMI 43.8 kg/m(2)). Data on complications, reoperations, weight, BMI, percentage of excess weight loss, and co-morbidities were collected yearly. The data were analyzed using Student's t test and Fisher's exact test, with P<.05 considered significant.Results Five patients in the LAGB group and 3 patients in the LRYGB group were lost to follow-up. No patient died. Conversion to laparotomy was performed in 1 (4.2%) of 24 LRYGB patients. Reoperations were required in 9 (40.9%) of 22 LAGB patients and in 6 (28.6%) of the 21 LRYGB patients. At 10-year follow-up, the LRYGB patients had a greater percentage of mean excess weight loss than did the LAGB patients (69±29% versus 46±27%; P = .03).Conclusion LRYGB was superior to LAGB in term of excess weight loss results (76.2% versus 46.2%) at 10 years. However, LRYGB exposes patients to higher early complication rates than LAGB (8.3% versus 0%) and potentially lethal long-term surgical complications (internal hernia and bowel obstruction rate: 4.7%).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.soard.2012.11.011

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Angrisani, L., Cutolo, P. P., Formisano, G., Nosso, G., & Vitolo, G.
Affiliations
Federico II University Hospital (IT)
Corresponding author
Angrisani, Luigi
Venue
Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-05
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
405-413
ISSN
1550-7289 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2963595971
Cited by
107
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5
FWCI
12.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Body Contouring and Surgery
Keywords
laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Morbid, Laparoscopy, Postoperative Complications, Prospective Studies, Reoperation, Gastric Bypass, Gastroplasty, Weight Loss, Body Mass Index, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review