ライフサイエンスコーパス: gastric banding

1 d 21 women underwent laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding).

2 rgoing bariatric surgery (gastric bypass and gastric banding).

3 09 who had undergone laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

4 ic bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, or adjustable gastric banding.

5 re, and have a surgical procedure other than gastric banding.

6 leeve gastrectomy have a greater effect than gastric banding.

7 d for procedures following failed adjustable gastric banding.

8 s and procedures following failed adjustable gastric banding.

9 een 2005 and 2008 for patients who had prior gastric banding.

10 leeve gastrectomy and 1 following adjustable gastric banding.

11 mplication rate than laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

12 in patients losing equivalent weight through gastric banding.

13 d with greater initial weight reduction than gastric banding (2.77 kg/mo).

14 .5% (40.7%-54.2%) for patients who underwent gastric banding; 61.6% (56.7%-66.5%), gastric bypass; 68

15 ric bypasses and one laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding--62+/-52 months ago for the control of s

16 my (adjusted RR, 16.6; 95% CI, 4.7-58.4) and gastric banding (adjusted RR, 6.9; 95% CI, 3.1-15.2).

17 ic bypass (RYGB) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (AGB) are 2 of the most commonly perform

18 oux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or adjustable gastric banding (AGB) in the MarketScan Commercial Claim

19 of this study was to analyze the adjustable gastric banding (AGB) natural history on a national basi

20 e in veterans who underwent RYGB, adjustable gastric banding (AGB), or sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

21 educes body weight (BW) more than adjustable gastric banding (AGB), which does not trigger increased

22 performed as a rescue procedure after failed gastric banding and (2) study trends in the frequency of

23 er, the frequency of reoperations related to gastric banding and associated short-term outcomes are u

24 stablishes an animal model for nonadjustable gastric banding and characterizes the effect of gastric

25 Restrictive procedures such as adjustable gastric banding and gastroplasty were excluded.

26 echniques, including laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypas

27 pass, 15% sleeve gastrectomy, 10% adjustable gastric banding, and 1% other.

28 Roux-en-Y bypass, 62% (95% CI, 46-79) after gastric banding, and 60% (95% CI, 51-70) after sleeve ga

29 patients, 13% underwent gastric bypass, 19% gastric banding, and 68% vertical-banded gastroplasty.

30 n and laparoscopic), laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, and biliopancreatic diversion (with or

31 en-Y gastric bypass, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

32 ness of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding, and most recently sleeve gastrectomy fo

33 Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, and their effects on weight loss, comor

34 The use of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding approached one-third (32.1%) of all proc

35 Although laparoscopic gastric banding as a primary treatment of morbid obesity

36 by 2.9% after gastric bypass and 1.9% after gastric banding at latest follow-up (P < 0.001 for both

37 nish citizens who received gastric bypass or gastric banding between January 1, 1997, and December 31

38 These findings suggest that gastric banding causes esophageal outlet obstruction and

39 enomegaly, living-related donor nephrectomy, gastric banding for morbid obesity, partial gastrectomy,

40 secondary procedure after failed adjustable gastric banding (group 2).

41 Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding has been demonstrated to permit importan

42 rgoing gastric bypass procedure after failed gastric banding have more adverse outcomes than those un

43 estrictive operations, especially adjustable gastric banding, have a lower risk but are somewhat less

44 Complications after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding include stomal stenosis, malpositioned b

45 The number of reoperations after gastric banding is rapidly increasing in the United Stat

46 Laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding is under evaluation by the Food & Drug A

47 +/- 6.7 kg/m(2)) or laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) (n = 10, BMI 46.5 +/- 8.8 kg/m(2)

48 ric bypass (RYGB) or laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) are not well described.

49 ight loss induced by laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB

50 Eight studies of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) reported data on 352 patients (me

51 stric bypass (RYGB), laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), and an intensive lifestyle weigh

52 ric bypass (RYGB) or laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), we assessed percent weight chang

53 those who underwent laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB).

54 ges before and after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB).

55 ric bypass [RYGB] or laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding [LAGB]) followed by low-level lifestyle

56 Patients who underwent laparoscopic gastric banding lost less weight (change in BMI, 6.4 +/-

57 The 2 most common procedures, adjustable gastric banding (n = 109) and gastric bypass (n = 109),

58 Procedures included laparoscopic gastric banding (n=1053), gastric bypass (795), and slee

59 surgery (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, n = 162; gastric banding, n = 32; sleeve gastrectomy, n = 23), a

60 o bariatric surgery (laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; n = 30).

61 tric banding and characterizes the effect of gastric banding on esophageal physiology.

62 compared with those who underwent adjustable gastric banding (OR, 8.37 [95% CI, 7.44-9.43]; OR, 21.43

63 Adjustable gastric banding represented the most common bariatric pr

64 3 (95% CI, 0.08-3.56) for gastric bypass and gastric banding, respectively.

65 3 (95% CI, 0.40-3.75) for gastric bypass and gastric banding, respectively.

66 (95% CI, 0.12-11.49) for gastric bypass and gastric banding, respectively.

67 d 1071 patients receiving gastric bypass and gastric banding, respectively.

68 Nonadjustable gastric banding results in impaired esophageal body moti

69 tric surgery, stratified by type of surgery (gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastre

70 The broad indication for gastric banding should be reaffirmed for the US populati

71 Surgical management (gastric banding, sleeve gastrectomy, and Roux-en Y gastr

72 eveloped bariatric surgery models, including gastric banding, sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric b

73 The gastric banding subset was composed of 800 (74.7%) women

74 t common reason for revision with adjustable gastric banding surgery.

75 ranges from 49% for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to 76% for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

76 The use of gastric banding to treat obesity has increased drastical

77 Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding-to treat T2DM in severely obese patients

78 f psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, whereas gastric banding was not.

79 patients undergoing either gastric bypass or gastric banding were followed up for 36 months.

80 vertical sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding were performed in 66%, 28%, and 6% of pa

81 ctive treatment for diabetes than adjustable gastric banding within 6 to 12 months.