could  i see a reference, link, copy, or abstract to a scholarly, peer reviewed article where you present data on stomach regrowth over time.  thanks.

I know the stomach is a great organ for healing itself and the RNY pouch and remnant stomach have healed together but, I have never heard of the stomach regrowing after a partial gastrectomy.  Interesting!

Jean,

While not close, you and I have had a decent relationship via OH. I would encourage you to read the OP's responses throughout this thread and reconsider your salute. 

I am not going to argue, I have no reason to,  I also work in the industry and have seen some pretty bad complications related to the LapBand.

I was the perfect band patient, I had just over 4 mls in my 14 ml LapBand.  I lost 270lbs.  I never have an unfill or even a partial  unfil for being too tight.

The LapBand failed me.  I didn't fail my Band.  My complications had NOTHING to do with my actions or my compliance.  I think it is unkind and untrue to make a statement such as yours.  NOT all problems with the Band are related to how it is used.

You say you are not going to argue- and yet you post. You say you "also work in the industry and have seen some pretty bad complications related to the LapBand." (sic) and yet you don't say what you did or where. 

You say you were the perfect patient, and never had an unfill - but don't talk about what your issue was. 

You come to a place where people go for support- make unspecified claims, make accusations, and then run behind words.

You put almost every logical fallacy out there so let us just dismantle a few:

(a) You are not an expert in the industry. You, like all of us, may know of some people with complications.  If you were an expert you would discuss papers, complications, and why they arise

(b) You appeal to authority (a logical fallacy) by stating that "you work in the industry"

(c) You have a vendetta against the band, stating it was the band that was the problem - not you, but a piece of plastic - (again appealing to authority) not even talking about the complication

So why don't you stop your arguing and go to a forum where you can be helpful instead of one where you try to scare people? Why do you come to a forum that specifically is here to help? Well, that we have answered. 

For now, just go away. This isn't your place. 

To be fair, in an earlier post, you also made unspecified claims referring to leak rates and that you personally have compiled four and five year sleeve data that appears to reveal organ regeneration. It would be helpful to specify these claims so that the audience can review the study design to properly consider the resultant claims.

You also state previously that your views on how the band should function have evolved over time. Is it also possible that sleeve techniques have evolved over the past 5 years? 

The sleeve data is well reported in the literature. I'm not here to argue sleeves. Technique is pretty unchanged

On April 21, 2013 at 7:31 AM Pacific Time, terrysimpson wrote: The sleeve data is well reported in the literature. I'm not here to argue sleeves. Technique is pretty unchanged

Unfortunately, the statements within this post are also unspecified claims...

If you are not here to discuss sleeves, I would suggest not discussing sleeves.

If this sleeve data is well reported in the literature can provide links to those articles?  Authors? Journals?  If these studie are so well reported they certainly should come up on a simple pub med search, yet they don't. 

Fair question: 

Here is a meta-analysis of some data: 

Surgical strategies that may decrease leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 9991 cases.

Source

Department of Surgery, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA. [email protected]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To conduct a systematic review to identify surgical strategies that may decrease leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

BACKGROUND:

LSG is growing in popularity as a primary bariatric procedure. Technical aspects of LSG including bougie size remain controversial.

METHODS:

Our systematic review yielded 112 studies encompassing 9991 LSG patients. A general estimating equation (GEE) model was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) for leak based on bougie size, distance from the pylorus, and use of buttressing on the staple line. Baseline characteristics, including age and body mass index (BMI), were included. A linear repeated measures regression model compared excess weight loss (%EWL) between bougie sizes.

RESULTS:

A total of 198 leaks in 8922 patients (2.2%) were identified. The GEE model revealed that the risk of leak decreased with bougie ≥40 Fr (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = [0.37-0.77]; P = 0.0009). Buttressing did not impact leak. There was no difference in %EWL between bougie