We are no longer accepting cases regarding these products. Due to a terrible Supreme Court ruling, consumers injured by this product are no longer permitted to sue the manufacturers of this device. We wish we could help, but the Supreme Court has taken the rights of citizens away to protect the profits of medical device manufacturers. For more information, please read the following New York Times article entitled “Medical Device Ruling Redraws Lines on Lawsuits.“
J.C. Jan et al. published a study in 2007 in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases titled “Comparative study between laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and laparoscopic gastric bypass: single-institution, 5-year experience in bariatric surgery.” that evaluated the relative efficacy and safety of gastric banding systems and gastric bypass procedures.
For this paper, the team studied 492 gastric bypass patients and 406 gastric banding patients, who underwent the relevant procedures between October 2000 and October 2005. After statistical analysis, it was found that “The percentage of excess weight loss was significantly better for patients who underwent [gastric bypass surgery] at all points of follow-up, except at 5 years.” Generally, the gastric bypass and gastric banding procedures are fairly effective methods of weight loss for the severely obese.
The team also found that “Total complications occurred in 32% of patients who underwent [gastric bypass] and 24% of patients who underwent [gastric banding]”. And, that “[the] 90-day mortality rate was .2% in both groups.” Further, Jan et al. determined that “The reoperation rate was the same (17%) in both groups.”
These findings are important: the manufacturer of the gastric banding system studied, the LAP-BAND, by Allergan, reported in the LAP-BAND Warning Label that only about 4.7% of patients will require reoperation. As this paper found a reoperation rate triple that reported by the company, it may be used as evidence in an Allergan LAP-BAND lawsuit to illustrate to a court that Allergan knew, or should have known, the risks associated with its product.