Subfascial Port Placement in Gastric Banding Surgery
Author(s)
Clough, Anthony
Layani, Laurent
Sidhu, Mayenaaz
Wheatley, Lucas
Shah, Abha
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2011
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Background In some bariatric patients with predominantly intra-abdominal fat a shallow fat layer separates the gastric band access port from the skin. We hypothesise that subfascial port placement in these patients reduces skin erosions and port infections and improves cosmesis as weight loss occurs. Aim This study aims to compare port complications, cosmetic outcome and ease of band adjustment with access ports in front of or behind the rectus muscle. Method We retrospectively compared complications and cosmetic outcomes of patients with subfascial ports to a control group matched for gender, BMI and age. Each ...
View more >Background In some bariatric patients with predominantly intra-abdominal fat a shallow fat layer separates the gastric band access port from the skin. We hypothesise that subfascial port placement in these patients reduces skin erosions and port infections and improves cosmesis as weight loss occurs. Aim This study aims to compare port complications, cosmetic outcome and ease of band adjustment with access ports in front of or behind the rectus muscle. Method We retrospectively compared complications and cosmetic outcomes of patients with subfascial ports to a control group matched for gender, BMI and age. Each subject completed a questionnaire utilising a 1 to 10 scale for nine parameters related to comfort and cosmesis and two parameters related to discomfort during adjustments. Results Sixty-eight patients with subfascial ports were identified and the overall response rate was 84%. The groups were well matched for gender (m:f ratio 1.8:1 vs. 1.7:1, p= 1.000), age (51.0 vs. 49.6 years, p=0.528) and BMI (39.8 vs. 40.3 kg/m2, p=0.585). There was no difference in port infection rates (0/68 vs. 1/68, p=1.000) but the subfascial group had more hernias (3/68 vs. 0/68, p=0.244). Subfascial patients experienced more pain during adjustments (score 4.3 vs. 2.6, p=0.047) but a combined analysis of cosmesis showed a slight positive trend (1.58 vs. 1.76, p=0.379). Conclusion Both port locations are well tolerated. Subfascial placement is associated with more pain during adjustments but there is no difference in port infection or skin erosion rates.
View less >
View more >Background In some bariatric patients with predominantly intra-abdominal fat a shallow fat layer separates the gastric band access port from the skin. We hypothesise that subfascial port placement in these patients reduces skin erosions and port infections and improves cosmesis as weight loss occurs. Aim This study aims to compare port complications, cosmetic outcome and ease of band adjustment with access ports in front of or behind the rectus muscle. Method We retrospectively compared complications and cosmetic outcomes of patients with subfascial ports to a control group matched for gender, BMI and age. Each subject completed a questionnaire utilising a 1 to 10 scale for nine parameters related to comfort and cosmesis and two parameters related to discomfort during adjustments. Results Sixty-eight patients with subfascial ports were identified and the overall response rate was 84%. The groups were well matched for gender (m:f ratio 1.8:1 vs. 1.7:1, p= 1.000), age (51.0 vs. 49.6 years, p=0.528) and BMI (39.8 vs. 40.3 kg/m2, p=0.585). There was no difference in port infection rates (0/68 vs. 1/68, p=1.000) but the subfascial group had more hernias (3/68 vs. 0/68, p=0.244). Subfascial patients experienced more pain during adjustments (score 4.3 vs. 2.6, p=0.047) but a combined analysis of cosmesis showed a slight positive trend (1.58 vs. 1.76, p=0.379). Conclusion Both port locations are well tolerated. Subfascial placement is associated with more pain during adjustments but there is no difference in port infection or skin erosion rates.
View less >
Journal Title
Obesity Surgery
Volume
21
Issue
5
Subject
Medical and Health Sciences not elsewhere classified
Clinical Sciences
Public Health and Health Services