• Hi, If you cannot get into the site, be sure to Contact Us. Please be advised that the app is no longer in use!

Study Finds . . . Gastric bypass better than Lap-Band

Kevin1708

Century Club
Gastric bypass better than Lap-Band, study finds
Bypass patients lost double the amount of weight than Lap-Band patients
A study of the two most popular weight-loss surgeries found obese diabetics who had gastric bypass surgery lost 64 percent of their excess weight after a year, compared with 36 percent in those treated with Allergan Inc's Lap-Band device, researchers said on Monday.
Complication rates were about the same with both procedures.
"It's a dramatic difference," said Dr. Guilherme Campos of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine in Madison, and formerly of the University of California, San Francisco, whose study appears in the Archives of Surgery.
Weight loss surgery is becoming increasingly popular as obese people struggle to lose weight and avoid the health complications that accompany the extra pounds -- including diabetes, heart disease, joint pain and some cancers.
Prior studies have suggested gastric banding was safer than gastric bypass surgery, in which doctors surgically reduce the size of the stomach to limit the amount a person can eat.
With gastric banding, doctors insert an adjustable silicone band around the upper part of the stomach, giving the patient the illusion of fullness with small meals.
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration approved expanded use of the stomach band, allowing it to be implanted in less obese people.
In this study, researchers compared Allergan's Lap-Band device with a form of gastric bypass surgery known as Roux-en-Y. The surgery was done laparoscopically -- through small incisions in the belly.
The study involved 100 morbidly obese people who underwent Lap-Band surgery. These patients were matched by sex, race, age and weight with 100 patients who underwent gastric bypass.
All of the bypass surgeries were performed by expert surgeons in high-volume weight loss centers.
"In the gastric bypass patients, about 86 percent of patients successfully lost more than 40 percent of excess weight. Only about 31 percent of the Lap-Band patients lost that amount of weight," Campos said in a telephone interview.
"That is significant," he said.
Overall, 12 percent of patients in the Lap-Band group and 15 percent of patients in the gastric bypass group experienced complications. Patients who got gastric banding were more likely to have complications right after their surgeries, while Lap-Band patients were more likely to need a second operation. There were no deaths in either group.
The study shows that gastric bypass provides better weight loss, better resolution of diabetes and an improvement in quality of life compared to the Lap-Band, Campos said.
He said obese patients need to be informed of the results of the two procedures, and if they choose gastric bypass they need to make sure their surgeon is highly experienced.
Please do not shoot the messenger. See : Gastric bypass better than Lap-Band, study finds - Worldnews.com
 
I'm sure I've read somewhere that the overall weight loss for banders and bypassers after 2-3 years is practically the same. I'd need the bypass as I would cheat with a band...
 
The study actually does not prove very much as it was done over the course of 1 year and as everyone knows it can take a lot longer for banders to find their Sweet Spot. Whilst those who have undergone Gastric Bypass will lose most of their weight in the first year.

Each type of surgery has pros and cons and it is about finding the one that will suit you and your life style as everyone is so very different.
 
Ive not got time to read the full article right now, but a few things spring to mind. First thing I would say is that bypass is not better than band - just different. Yes it was the best choice FOR ME, but doesnt mean it is the safer, most effective surgery necessarily.

Secondly, the sample size was only 100 patients, which compared with the 1000's having surgery is too small a sample size in my opinion.

Thirdly, I was surprised to see that 86% of bypass patients had only lost 40% of their excess weight after 12 months. 40% doesnt seem very high to me.

Finally, 1 year is not a long enough comparison. Weight loss will be more rapid in most bypass patients but all the studies that I have seen show that over time results are pretty similar.
 
Not wanting to be controversial here - but given what happened last time we had posts like this would it have been better to not post this at all?

As others have said there are pros and cons to every surgery. Most people go in with their eyes wide open as to the procedure they are going to have. The odd few like me go in expecting the procedure to be done and come out with something else for medical reasons.

Please lets not start this whole debate again. This site is about supporting all types of wls - not pitting any one type of surgery against the other.

tranquil x
 
Aren't banders usually less obese than bypassers at the beginning? In which case it makes perfect sense that the percentage weight loss would be smaller for them than bypassers.

I think it's good to discuss the differences in outcomes of each surgery so that visitors here can make an informed decision. Band wouldn't have worked for me because of my tendency to binge on sweet foods. If it hadn't been for that problem I think I would have preferred the band though because at least it doesn't rework my internal plumbing.

It would be interesting to have seen sleevers included in that study too, especially as the sleeve is now being used as a stand alone wls and not just as a prequel to a bypass.

Incidentally, if anything were going to put me off having a band, it would be that very scary picture of Tina Malone which keeps appearing on the advert at the top of the page.
 
For what its worth, I think I tend to agree with Tranquil. We can all find info like this on the internet and I came to this forum for support and personal info. I'm always suspicious of studies like this because there is usually a hidden agenda in my experience. For instance, this is a study in the USA isn't it, where banding isn't as popular as in Europe so who funded this study? Whoever funded this study had a vested interest in the outcome, I bet!
You also have to look at that last sentence- bypass is better than band... its better at what? I guess what they mean is that bypassers lose more weight in 1year than banders but didn't we all know that and isn't it an individuals choice anyway?
Not a useful post IMHO.(sorry- and I'm a newbie pre-opper too!)
 
As some of you may already know i started my nurse training last year and we have to do a lot of academic writing. The one thing i have learned from this is that you can twist stats and quotes to mean anything you want them to. xxx
 
I am sorry if I have offended anyone on here . . . firstly, it is not my intention to create a divided ~ my goal is simply to promote intellectual exchange. This post has brought about some interesting and considered responses where the article has been deconstructed and evaluated accordingly. I am in no way medically qualified and would not, therefore, advocate one type of WLS over another in addition we are all different with differing needs. I seek out articles that others may miss and deliver them impartially.

The recent addition of the ‘Banders’ and ‘Bypass’ homes were, in my understanding, a means of improving navigation. Each WLS type has its own benefits and I am sure pitfalls – I have found that this site encourages and supports all comers while delivering an understanding of all types of WLS. I believe it would be wrong to sensor this site from outside comment – it would be dangerous to create an online ‘fluffy world’ where healthy debate is stifled. Even if a member wanted to run a thread purporting WW is better than SW or WLS pre se then why not – we are all grownups and such debates are often healthy. xx
 
I am sorry if I have offended anyone on here . . . firstly, it is not my intention to create a divided ~ my goal is simply to promote intellectual exchange. This post has brought about some interesting and considered responses where the article has been deconstructed and evaluated accordingly. I am in no way medically qualified and would not, therefore, advocate one type of WLS over another in addition we are all different with differing needs. I seek out articles that others may miss and deliver them impartially.

The recent addition of the ‘Banders’ and ‘Bypass’ homes were, in my understanding, a means of improving navigation. Each WLS type has its own benefits and I am sure pitfalls – I have found that this site encourages and supports all comers while delivering an understanding of all types of WLS. I believe it would be wrong to sensor this site from outside comment – it would be dangerous to create an online ‘fluffy world’ where healthy debate is stifled. Even if a member wanted to run a thread purporting WW is better than SW or WLS pre se then why not – we are all grownups and such debates are often healthy. xx


I understand your reasoning for posting this. However .... I, having read your initial post thought exactly the same as the others and was (if there had not been so many eloquent replies) going to post in the same vein.

I pulled you up on a similar post a few months ago, this was before I realised you were a prolific poster of research, studies and articles - so I haven't, unlike last time, pulled you up on it as I do believe you're just trying to help and engineer informed debate.

Unfortunately the choice of wording you use undermines your desire to "promote intellectual exchange" - how can there be intellectual dialogue [sic] with such inflammatory wording? I guess you literally copied and pasted the article from somewhere which used the words "Gastric bypass better than Lap-Band" or was that the conclusion you came to having read the article? If it is the latter ... don't fret, just choose your wording more carefully ... as it may offend or inflame. :)
 
"Gastric bypass better than Lap-Band" or was that the conclusion you came to having read the article? If it is the latter ... don't fret, just choose your wording more carefully ... as it may offend or inflame. :)

A straight ‘cut and paste’ so not my choice of words - I am guessing that the headline is designed to be inflammatory (to some) . . . these things will never truly be balanced ergo what better arena for discussion that WLS forum. Debate is never bad and I post as I find . . . take care x
 
A straight ‘cut and paste’ so not my choice of words - I am guessing that the headline is designed to be inflammatory (to some) . . . these things will never truly be balanced ergo what better arena for discussion that WLS forum. Debate is never bad and I post as I find . . . take care x

Agreed debate is always good. However the starting from an inflamed standpoint is always tricky. :)
 
Agreed debate is always good. However the starting from an inflamed standpoint is always tricky. :)

But it is factual, there has been a study and the results as per the headline (the validity of the study is a different matter, indeed the matter for robust debate) . . . as Shakespeare so eloquently put it . . . don’t shoot the messenger ! (Henry IV Part II)
 
Back
Top