Long-Term Maintenance of Gastric Band, Even After Replacement, Improves Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We estimated the surgical effects of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in a sample of primary band patients in comparison to patients who needed band replacement due to band malfunction. Methods: An historical cohort study, composed of patients who underwent LAGB in surgery ward A, Soroka University Medical Center, which compared primary to revisional band patients. We used a set of questionnaires, including demographics data, health condition, and a quality-of-life evaluation (Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System [BAROS]). Results: Our study included 343 patients, of whom 97 were revisional surgery to replace the band due to mechanical reasons and 217 had a primary band operation. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding demographics or weight, apart from gender. The total BAROS score was significantly different between the groups, significantly better for good/excellent results among the band replacements. Conclusions: Our results have shown that band replacement has a similar complication rate to primary surgery. The results of band replacement are very similar to primary band surgery and even show a larger reduction in excess weight over time. We believe that LAGB contributes to the improvement of comorbidities in patients who have undergone band replacement, at least as in the general population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".