Laparoscopic Revision of Vertical Banded Gastroplasty to Sleeve Gastrectomy for Gastric Outlet Obstruction: Early Experience in Cohort of 18 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The long-term effectiveness of Vertical Banded Gastroplasty (VBG) is limited due to development of complications related to gastric outlet obstruction at the band site.Surgical reversal or conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass has been the mainstay of treatment for complications.The purpose of this study was to assess outcomes of revising VBG to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in patients presenting with gastric outlet obstruction.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 18 consecutive patients that underwent revision of VBG to LSG for gastric outlet obstruction, from 2008 to 2012, in an academic institution.Results: The mean age of the patients was 47 ± 11 years (89% females), with mean preoperative BMI of 36 ± 8 kg/m2.The mean length of time from the original VBG was 10 ± 7 years.Gastric outlet obstruction, diagnosed by EGD and UGI, was present in 100% (n=18).Intolerance to solid food was present in 39%, while 44% had reflux symptoms.The mean operative time was 187 ± 50 min.There was one conversion to open sleeve gastrectomy secondary to dense adhesions.There were two staple-line leaks (11%) requiring reoperation.There were no perioperative bleeds and no deaths.Symptom resolution was observed in 95% of patients.Postoperative BMI was 33 ± 6 kg/m2 at 15-month follow-up.Conclusion: Revision of VBG to LSG is a safe and feasible option for patients presenting with gastric outlet obstruction with low BMI.This procedure alleviates gastric outlet obstruction, while maintaining gastric restriction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".