Why the band?

My surgeon was the same for my band and for my band removal/sleeve.

He gently hinted that another procedure may be more effective than the band prior to my initial surgery, but I really thought the band was the right choice for me, so he did what I asked. Maybe I should have listened or maybe I had to go through the band to realize that reducing my over-sized stomach was not a drastic move.

He did tell me the other day that he is now removing more bands than he puts in, but I have seen at his support group a couple of relatively successful ("relatively" meaning they have lost significant amounts of weight, but maybe not as much as they had hoped or aren't quite to goal yet but are keeping their bands and working on it) bandsters.

I was never deficient in any of my vitamins until after being banded. Now I am having to take supplements because of the band. I hope to get them up ASAP because I;m tired of feeling tired.

 I too, bought into the "less invasive". And also got burned like many others. Had I done more research for myself instead of believing all that the surgeon and Allergen told me I could have saved myself about $20,000 and a lot of pain and frustration.

Please research all the WLS, and then decide.

The less invasive only means that it's easier for the surgeon to put the band in, not that it will be less invasive once it's in there.
It is very, very invasive and can be very destructive once it is put around your stomach.
It is actually the scar tissue that forms around your stomach that will help hold the band into place.
By the time mine was removed 2 years later it had cause considerable amount of damage to the tissue of the stomach. My Sleeve had to be made smaller then the surgeon liked to do because of all the damage.
I had lots of referred shoulder pain while I had the band and if I try to eat to much even now it can still make me hurt because of the damage done by the band.

So, please, think twice and cut once.
Good luck

The less invasive only means that it's easier for the surgeon to put the band in, not that it will be less invasive once it's in there.

That's probably why so many general surgeons seem to be jumping on the bandwagon (so to speak), thinking "easy money" and having no real idea of what's involved in patient aftercare and potential complications. Scary.

Jean

My reasons were the same as Bette's. I wasn't interested in malabsorption and for some reason I was wary of having part of my stomach permanently removed. I'm not sure that extra piece of stomach I saved was doing me any special favors, and saying goodbye to my uterus and ovaries hadn't bothered me much, but I don't regret my choice of the band.

I want to address the issue of invasiveness that some other posters raised. I don't recall my surgeon saying anything (during my WLS seminar and any consultations that followed) about the band being the least invasive procedure, but it's true that less invasiveness is part of the band's marketing persona. When you think about it for more than a minute or two, that just doesn't make sense. Any surgery that requires the patient to be anesthetized while the surgeon makes 1 or more incisions, implants a medical device and/or does any cutting, rearranging, or suturing, is pretty darned invasive.

Jean