• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Laparoscopic Removal of Poor-outcome Gastric Banding With Concomitant Sleeve Gastrectomy As a Reoperative Procedure

Laparoscopic Removal of Poor-outcome Gastric Banding With Concomitant Sleeve Gastrectomy As a Reoperative Procedure

Aayed R Alqahtani, FRCSC FACS, Mohamed Elahmedi, MD, Hussam Alamri, MD. King Saud University, College of Medicine, Department of Surgery

 

Introduction
Several studies questioned the long-term safety and efficacy of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), primarily due to inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and band-related complications. The percentage of reoperations varies greatly, ranging from 2% to 80%. Although there is no consensus regarding which alternative surgical solution to perform, removal of the band, rebanding, conversion to gastric bypass, biliopancreatic diversion, and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) have all been investigated as reoperative procedures, with varying degrees of success.

We conducted a retrospective review evaluating the feasibility of performing LSG at the time of band removal and assessing its safety and efficacy as a reoperative (Redo) solution.

Methods and Procedures
A retrospective review of patients who underwent LSG for poor outcome LAGB performed by a single surgeon between November 2007 and June 2011 was conducted. Data collection included patient demographics, weight and height at the time of banding and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-gastric banding, complications, indication for revision, time interval between banding and Redo, weight and height at the day of reoperation, and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months post-Redo. Hospital stay, operative time, and postoperative complications were also evaluated.

Results
Twenty patients underwent LABG Redo during the study interval, of whom 13 were female (65%), with an average age of 28.3 ± 10.9 years . Median BMI was 49.6 kg/m2 (range 29.6-57.3) before band placement, and 41.6 kg/m2 (range 30.8-61.7) at the time of the revisional procedure, performed at an average of 3 years 5 months ± 1 year postoperative.

After gastric banding, 1 patient had gastric outlet obstruction secondary to band slippage, 4 had severe dysphagia, and 3 had intolerable reflux esophagitis. At 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-gastric banding, patients had an excess BMI loss of 24.1%, 32.5%, 31.0%, and 22.7%, respectively. Nineteen patients (95%) had weight regain. After revisional surgery, excess BMI loss was 29.9%, 48.6%, 65.3%, and 69.2% at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively.

Mean operative time for the Redo surgery was 2 hours 25 minutes ± 36 minutes, and mean hospital stay was 2.6 ± 1.1 days. Following the Redo procedure, 1 patient had postoperative pneumonia with an uneventful recovery.

Table 1. Excess BMI Loss after Revisional Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.
  Median BMI Median Percentage
Excess BMI Loss
Timeline                      LAGB(n)  Redo(n) LAGB  Redo
Baseline 49.6 (20) 41.6 (20)  
3 Months 42.8 (10) 40.6 (13) 24.1%  29.9%
6 Months 39.9 (13) 35.9 (14) 32.5%  48.6%
12 Months 38.0 (15) 32.7 (10) 31.0%  65.3%
24 Months 43.7 (11) 29.8 (6) 22.7%  69.2%

LAGB: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding
Redo: Laparoscopic removal of gastric banding with concomitant sleeve gastrectomy
 

Conclusion
Laparoscopic removal of gastric banding with concomitant sleeve gastrectomy is a safe and effective procedure, with higher excess BMI loss and fewer complications compared with LABG. LSG can be recommended as a revisional procedure for poor-outcome gastric banding.

 


Session Number: Poster – Poster Presentations
Program Number: P459
View Poster

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

Refine Search