Early weight loss results were not different between the groups, but after 2 years the more restrictive LSG (groups 2, 3) results were significantly better than in patients without calibration. A removed gastric volume of <500 cc seems to be a predictor of failure in treatment or early weight regain. A statistically significant improved health status and quality of life were registered for all groups. The general introduction of LSG as a one-stage restrictive procedure in the bariatric field can be considered only if the procedure is standardized and long-term results are available.

LAGB is safe, with a lower complication rate than other bariatric operations. Reoperations can be performed laparoscopically with low morbidity and short hospitalizations. The LAGB seems to be the basic bariatric procedure, which can be switched laparoscopically to combined bariatric procedures if treatment fails. After the learning curve of the surgeon, results are markedly improved. On the basis of 8 years long-term follow-up, it is an effective procedure.

Background: Worldwide, the incidence of morbid obesity is increasing, and surgery is the only effective longterm treatment. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is associated with acceptable weight loss and reduced comorbidities. It is considered a safe procedure with sporadic complications. This publication aims to describe failures of LSG in terms of ineffective weight loss or early weight regain, and analyze secondary treatment options. Methods: From October 2001 to December 2010, 937 patients underwent LSG in our department. Initially, all procedures were scheduled as a two-stage procedure (LSG followed by biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch). However, the second procedure was not performed in 64 patients (body mass index > 60 kg/m²). Since 2005, the frequency of second stage procedures after weight regain has been increasing; their outcome is analyzed. Results: Of the 937 patients, 17 (1.8%) experienced staple line leakage. Mean time to first reintervention or endoscopic stent placement was 15.6 ± 22 days (range 2–78). From 2005 to 2010, 106 secondary procedures were performed. Insufficient weight loss or weight regain were the indications in 88 cases. Sixteen (15%) patients had severe gastroesophageal reflux which was resolved by Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Stenosis was observed in 2 (2.6%) patients, which required endoscopic dilatation and stent placement in one case and gastric bypass in the other. Conclusions: LSG is a feasible and popular bariatric procedure. Mortality (0.4%) was much higher than after gastric bypass (0.03%) and gastric banding (0%) The knowledge of potential complications and their management is crucial. All restrictive procedures require patient compliance, but increased food uptake after RYGB and LSG is common. Malabsorptive procedures are more effective for long-term weight loss. Duodenal switch and omega-loop gastric bypass are more efficient second stage procedures than re-sleeve or RYGB.

The BQL questionnaire is a validated instrument ready for clinical use.

Our study indicates the safety and efficacy of GBT in extremely obese patients particularly as a first step before a definitive anti-obesity operation. GBT appears to be a safe, tolerable, and potentially effective procedure for the initial treatment of morbid obesity.