Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 690–696 | Cite as

Imaging of patients after the Lap-Band System application

  • Thomas KeaneEmail author
  • Alexander R. Margulis
  • Gregory F. Dakin
  • Alfons Pomp



We describe the use of imaging in the management of adjustable gastric-banding patients, and describe complications of banding that are diagnosed by imaging.

Materials & Methods

Using a four-year period as an example of complications of this type of laparoscopic approach, we have retrospectively identified all patients with laparoscopic bands who were imaged in the radiology department at our large multispecialty hospital. Included are patients who had their bands placed by the hospital’s surgeons as well as patients referred for consultation from other practices.


Twenty-two of 165 patients who had banding as their sole weight loss surgery had 23 complications diagnosed by imaging. Complications included band slip (3), device issues (4), esophageal dilation (8), esophageal dysmotility (5), symptomatic gallstones (2) and a gastroesphageal diverticulum (1). Complications were detected by fluoroscopy (17), CT (4) or ultrasound (2). 17 patients had banding as one of multiple bariatric surgeries, with 13 complications: band slip (4), port infection (1), esophageal dilation (1), esophageal dysmotility (5), anastomotic leak (1) and internal hernia (2). Complications were detected with fluoroscopy (12) and CT (1).


Fluoroscopy is generally the primary imaging modality used to diagnose complications of gastric banding. Esophageal dilation and dysmotility, which appear to be long-term sequelae of banding, were the most common complications identified by imaging.


Bariatric surgery Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding 


  1. 1.
    Santry HP, Gillen DL, Lauderdale DS (2005) Trends in bariatric surgical procedures. JAMA 294:1909–1917CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bult MJ, van Dalen T, Muller AF (2008) Surgical treatment of obesity. Eur J Endocrinol 158(2):135–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morino M, Toppino M, Forestieri P, et al. (2007) Mortality after bariatric surgery: analysis of 13,871 morbidly obese patients from a national registry. Ann Surg 246(6):1002–1007 (discussion 1007-9)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee CW, Kelly JJ, Wassef WY (2007) Complications of bariatric surgery. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 23(6):636–643PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gravante G, Araco A, Araco F, et al. (2007) Laparoscopic adjustable gastric bandings: a prospective randomized study of 400 operations performed with 2 different devices. Arch Surg 142(10):958–961CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buchwald H (2002) Overview of bariatric surgery. J Am Coll Surg 194(3):367–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Favretti F, Enzi G, Pizzirani E, et al. (1993) Adjustable silicone gastric banding (ASGB): the Italian experience. Obes Surg 3:53–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Mastrigt GA, van Dielen FM, Severens JL, Voss GB, Greve JW (2006) One-year cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of morbid obesity: vertical banded gastroplasty versus Lap-Band. Obes Surg 16(1):75–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blanc PM, Lagoutte JM, Picot MC, et al. (2008) Preliminary results of the laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding procedure by a new generation of silicone band: MIDBAND. Obes Surg 5:569–572Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ren CJ, Horgan S, Ponce J (2002) US experience with the LAP-BAND system. Am J Surg 184(6B):46S–50SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Keane
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexander R. Margulis
    • 2
  • Gregory F. Dakin
    • 3
  • Alfons Pomp
    • 3
  1. 1.ReynoldsburgUSA
  2. 2.Weill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Surgery, Section of Laparoscopic and Bariatric Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical CollegeNew York Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations