Adjustable Intragastric Balloon vs Non-Adjustable Intragastric Balloon: Case–Control Study on Complications, Tolerance, and Efficacy

Genco, Alfredo; Dellepiane, Daniela; Baglìo, Giovanni; Cappelletti, F; Frangella, Francesca; Maselli, Roberta; Dante, Maria Chiara; Camoirano, Romina; Lorenzo, Michele; Basso, Nicola

doi:10.1007/s11695-013-0891-5

Cited by 61 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(37 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean age of patients using NIBs was 40 and of those using AIBs, 39.7 -numbers higher than those registered in a similar study conducted by Genco et al (17) . The gender variable showed a pattern similar to other studies (17,23) . Females represented 79.9% of the NIB users and 72.4% of the AIB users.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 50%

“…Intragastric balloon (IGB) use is indicated for patients whose BMI precludes the option of bariatric surgery (8)(9)(10) , who have other contraindications, or who need to lose weight prior to undergoing surgery (10,11) . It is a minimally invasive procedure approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Brazilian Public gences in the IGB literature regarding the effects on excess weight loss (%EWL) and BMI reduction, as well as the possible initial influence of BMI on final treatment result (16)(17)(18)(19) . Furthermore, there is a scarcity of nationally or internationally published studies, not only evaluating the results of AIBs and NIBs individually, but also in comparison.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of Weight Loss After Non-Adjustable and Adjustable Intragastric Balloon Use

Schwaab

Usuy

Albuquerque

et al. 2020

Arq. Gastroenterol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Intragastric balloon (IGB) use is indicated for patients whose BMI precludes the option of bariatric surgery or who need to lose weight prior to undergoing surgery. It is a minimally invasive procedure and currently there are two main models of IGBs in use, the non-adjustable intragastric balloon (NIB), implanted for six months, and the adjustable intragastric balloon (AIB), implanted for up to 12 months. OBJECTIVE: Analyze clinical characteristics between patients receiving non-adjustable gastric balloon and the adjustable (prolonged implantation) intragastric balloon. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of 470 patients diagnosed as obese or overweight who had balloon implantation from October 2011 to July 2018. The associations between percentage excess weight loss versus clinical and demographic variables were calculated using the chi-squared test. Independent samples were submitted to the Student’s t test to determine the quantitative variables, with a confidence interval of 95%. Calculation of excess weight was based on an estimated ideal weight that would correspond to a BMI of 24.99 kg/m2. RESULTS: A total of 414 patients completed the treatment achieving an average total body weight loss (%TBWL) of 15.4±7 with the NIB and 15.5±9.6 with the AIB. Overweight patients achieved higher excess weight loss (%EWL) values using AIBs (157.2±82.5) and obese patients did so with NIB use (56±29.7). Women achieved higher %EWL values (65.6±62.2) than men (48±27.1). Individuals who attended >4 consultations with a nutritionist (60.8%) achieved TBWL >18%. All of those P-values were <0.001. CONCLUSION: Obese individuals and women registered the greatest weight losses. Overweight patients achieved greater losses using AIB and obese patients did so using NIBs. NIB use was associated with higher EWL percentages. Nutritional accompaniment had a positive impact on the %TBWL.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 50%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Weight Loss After Non-Adjustable and Adjustable Intragastric Balloon Use

Schwaab

Usuy

Albuquerque

et al. 2020

Arq. Gastroenterol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While a 4-month dwell time is less than the 6-month dwell times of other liquid-filled gastric balloons, previous work has demonstrated that 80 % of the weight lost in gastric balloon therapy occurs in the first 3 months of therapy [13]. Moreover, previous studies have demonstrated that balloons can be repeated in patients who require additional weight loss [14][15][16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elipse™, a Procedureless Gastric Balloon for Weight Loss: a Proof-of-Concept Pilot Study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gastric balloons are typically made of silicone elastomer [13,31]. One of their modes of failure is related to the gastric environment weakening the material [4,16], which can lead to spontaneous deflation and resultant bowel obstruction [14]. This type of failure is related to the cohesive deterioration of the silicone elastomer, while our study focuses on the adhesion between the silicone rubber and the substrate.…”

Section: The Role Of Lipids and Compression Forces In The Degradationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Silicone rubber encapsulation for an endoscopically implantable gastrostimulator

Lonys

Vanhoestenberghe

Julemont

et al. 2015

Med Biol Eng Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gastrointestinal stimulator implants have recently shown positive results in treating obesity. However, the implantation currently requires an invasive surgical procedure. Endoscopy could be used to place the gastric stimulator in the stomach, hence avoiding the riskier surgery. The implant then needs to go through the oesophagus and be located inside the stomach, which imposes new design constraints, such as miniaturization and protecting the electronic circuit against the highly acidic environment of the stomach. We propose to protect the implant by encapsulation with silicone rubber. This paper lists the advantages of this method compared to the more usual approach of a hermetic enclosure and then presents a method to evaluate the underwater adhesive stability of six adhesive/substrate couples, using repeated lap-shear tests and an elevated temperature to accelerate the ageing process. The results for different adhesive/substrate couples tested, presented on probability plots, show that FR4 and alumina substrates with MED4-4220 silicone rubber are suitable for a first implantable prototype. We then compare these with the predicted lifetimes of bonds between historical standard silicone rubber DC3140 and different substrates and describe the encapsulation of our gastrostimulator.

show abstract

Adjustable Intragastric Balloon vs Non-Adjustable Intragastric Balloon: Case–Control Study on Complications, Tolerance, and Efficacy

Abstract: The idea of dynamic balloon therapy needs to be confirmed with wider series. The rate of complication reported is very high, and several studies regarding safety and efficacy are needed.

Cited by 61 publications

References 19 publications

Assessment of Weight Loss After Non-Adjustable and Adjustable Intragastric Balloon Use

Assessment of Weight Loss After Non-Adjustable and Adjustable Intragastric Balloon Use

Elipse™, a Procedureless Gastric Balloon for Weight Loss: a Proof-of-Concept Pilot Study

Silicone rubber encapsulation for an endoscopically implantable gastrostimulator

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About