LAGB can achieve effective, safe and stable long-term weight loss. In experienced hands, the complication rate is low. Follow-up is paramount.

Antireflux surgery should be individualized to the characteristics of each patient, taking into consideration anatomy and propensity and tolerance of side effects. Both MSAD and LF showed significant improvements in reflux control, with similar safety and reoperation rates. In the treatment continuum of antireflux surgery, MSAD should be considered as a first-line surgical option in appropriately selected patients without Barrett's esophagus or a large hiatal hernia in order to avoid unnecessary dissection and preserve the patient's native gastric anatomy. MSAD is an important treatment option and will expand the surgeon's role in treating GERD.

The advent of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) during the latter part of the 20th century represents a watershed in the management of chronic obesity. In this paper we provide an overview of LAGB with respect to its development, clinical outcomes, and future role. We also address current controversies, including a comparison of LAGB with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP). At present LAGB seems to be increasing in popularity in the United States, whereas in Europe there seems to be a trend away from gastric banding toward RYGBP. Optimal outcomes after LAGB are a function of correct laparoscopic technique, an experienced surgical team, a well-engineered device, and intensive long-term follow-up. The majority of studies show that LAGB is an extremely safe and effective procedure, with an operative mortality of 0-0.1% and excess weight loss (%EWL) of 50-60%. Commensurate with this degree of weight loss, almost all studies show substantial improvements in obesity-related co-morbidities, such as hypertension, type II diabetes, and dyslipidemia. In addition, LAGB has been shown to be both safe and effective in the super-obese, in adolescents, and in older patients and can be delivered as an ambulatory procedure. Operative mortality and early complication rates are significantly higher for RYGBP and, whilst gastric bypass results in greater weight loss than LAGB in the first 2 years, at 3 years and beyond the difference appears to be less marked. Overall, LAGB provides a safe, effective intervention for obese patients and remains our first-choice procedure for bariatric surgery.

Preoperative psychological screening of bariatric surgery candidates has become routine, and a significant proportion of patients have their surgery deferred as a consequence. If psychological testing is being used as a form of preoperative triage, both patients and surgeons are entitled to know whether there is sufficient evidence to justify its use in this way. We define the argument for psychological screening as consisting of four premises (p1-p4) and a conclusion (C) as follows: (p1) A significant minority of obese patients will not be successful in losing weight following bariatric surgery-the "failure" group; (p2) A significant minority of patients will exhibit abnormal psychological profiles during preoperative testing; (p3) The majority of individuals referred to in (p2) will be found in group (p1) i.e., abnormal psychological profiles identified preoperatively predict less favorable weight loss outcomes postoperatively; (p4) Identifying patients with adverse psychological profiles preoperatively would allow either exclusion of those at high risk of failure or provide a more secure rationale for targeted pre- and postoperative support; (C) Psychological screening should be part of the routine preoperative assessment for patients undergoing obesity surgery. We reviewed the literature to find evidence to support the premises and show that (p1) can be justified but that (p2) is problematic and can only be accepted in a heavily qualified version. We find no evidence for (p3) and since (p4) and (C) are predicated on (p3), the argument clearly fails. There is no evidence to suggest that preoperative psychological screening can predict postoperative outcomes and no justification for using such testing as a means of discriminating between candidates presenting themselves for bariatric surgery.

No abstract