Five-Year Weight Loss Experience of Outpatients Receiving Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Band Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in a large cohort of morbidly obese patients followed for up to 5 years. METHODS: Morbidly obese patients, ≥ 16 years of age, who underwent LAGB surgery at the Surgical Weight Loss Clinic in Ontario, Canada, between May 2005 and January 2011 were eligible for this retrospective chart review. Electronic files were searched to identify all patients who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Demographics, weights at baseline and follow-up visits (up to 60 months following surgery), and post-operative complications were documented. As follow-up visits occurred at unevenly spaced intervals within and across patients, modeling methods were used to more accurately assess mean % weight loss (WL) and % excess weight loss (EWL) over time. RESULTS: This study included 2,815 patients (82 % female, mean age 43 years, mean baseline BMI 44.6 kg/m(2)) followed for a mean of 21.8 ± 15.4 months. Complications developed in 238 patients (8.5 %), the most frequent being prolapse/slippage (4.2 %), tubing/access port problems (1.2 %), and explantation (1.2 %). Mean %WL and %EWL progressed continuously over the first 2.5 years post-LAGB, plateauing at 20 and 49 %, respectively, for up to 5 years of follow up. Factors associated with increased weight loss were time since surgery, greater baseline weight (excess weight), older age at time of surgery, and male gender. CONCLUSIONS: Weight loss was maintained for up to 5 years in our population of patients who underwent LAGB for the treatment of morbid obesity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".