Document Detail

Adjustable intragastric balloons: a 12-month pilot trial in endoscopic weight loss management.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  21553304     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Intragastric balloons are associated with (1) early period intolerance, (2) diminished effect within 3-4 months, and (3) bowel obstruction risk mandating removal at 6 months. The introduction of an adjustable balloon could improve comfort and offer greater efficacy. A migration prevention function, safely enabling prolonged implantation, could improve efficacy and weight maintenance post-extraction. The first implantations of an adjustable balloon with an attached migration prevention anchor are reported. The primary endpoint was the absence of bowel perforation, obstruction, or hemorrhage. Eighteen patients with mean BMI of 37.3 were implanted with the Spatz Adjustable Balloon system (ABS) for 12 months. Balloon volumes were adjusted for intolerance or weight loss plateau. Mean weight loss at 24 weeks was 15.6 kg with 26.4% EWL (percent of excess weight loss) and 24.4 kg with 48.8% EWL at 52 weeks. Sixteen adjustments were successfully performed. Six downward adjustments alleviated intolerance, yielding additional mean weight loss of 4.6 kg. Ten upward adjustments for weight loss plateau yielded a mean additional weight loss of 7 kg. Seven balloons were removed prematurely. Complications necessitating early removal included valve malfunction (1), gastritis (1), Mallory-Weiss tear (1), NSAID (2× dose/2 weeks) perforating ulcer (1), and balloon deflation (1). Two incidents of catheter shear from the chain: one passed uneventfully and one caused an esophageal laceration without perforation during extraction. The Spatz ABS has been successfully implanted in 18 patients. (1) Upward adjustments yielded additional weight loss. (2) Downward adjustments alleviated intolerance, with continued weight loss. (3) Preliminary 1-year implantation results are encouraging.
Evzen Machytka; Pavel Klvana; Asher Kornbluth; Steven Peikin; Lisbeth E M Mathus-Vliegen; Christopher Gostout; Gontrand Lopez-Nava; Scott Shikora; Jeffrey Brooks
Related Documents :
1587094 - Application of electrical impedance tomography to the determination of lung volume.
18939534 - Fingerprinting metals in urban street dust of beijing, shanghai, and hong kong.
24720484 - Implant success remains high despite grafting voids in the maxillary sinus.
7239634 - Uses of the uicc samples.
25133134 - Modification of surface pretreatment of white spot lesions to improve the safety and ef...
9002804 - Dentastic bond strength to dentin.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Obesity surgery     Volume:  21     ISSN:  1708-0428     ISO Abbreviation:  Obes Surg     Publication Date:  2011 Oct 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2011-09-28     Completed Date:  2012-03-16     Revised Date:  2013-06-30    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9106714     Medline TA:  Obes Surg     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  1499-507     Citation Subset:  IM    
Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Gastric Balloon*
Middle Aged
Obesity / surgery*
Pilot Projects
Weight Loss
Young Adult

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Obes Surg
ISSN: 0960-8923
ISSN: 1708-0428
Publisher: Springer-Verlag, New York
Article Information
Download PDF
© The Author(s) 2011
Electronic publication date: Day: 8 Month: 5 Year: 2011
pmc-release publication date: Day: 8 Month: 5 Year: 2011
Print publication date: Month: 10 Year: 2011
Volume: 21 Issue: 10
First Page: 1499 Last Page: 1507
ID: 3179587
PubMed Id: 21553304
Publisher Id: 424
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-011-0424-z

Adjustable Intragastric Balloons: A 12-Month Pilot Trial in Endoscopic Weight Loss Management
Evzen Machytka1 Address: +420-604-388206 +420-597-374191
Pavel Klvana1 Address: +420-597-373222 +420-597-374191
Asher Kornbluth2 Address: +1-212-3692490 +1-212-3692207
Steven Peikin3 Address: +1-609-6052756 +1-856-3427832
Lisbeth E. M. Mathus-Vliegen4 Address: +31-20-5662707 +31-20-6917033
Christopher Gostout5 Address: +1-507-2666932 +1-507-2840161
Gontrand Lopez-Nava6 Address: +34-629-844307 +34-91-7500455
Scott Shikora7 Address: 1-617-6366093 +1-617-6369095
Jeffrey Brooks8 Address: +1-800-2773471 +1-800-2773471
1Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic
2Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY USA
3Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Camden, NJ USA
4Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
5Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA
6Hospital Universitario Madrid, Sanchinarro, Spain
7Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA USA
8Sheba Hospital, Tel Aviv, Israel


There are 300 million obese in the world population, many of whom are in need of a medical device that will afford them significantly better results than current weight loss drugs and commercial weight loss systems. While severe technical failures led to the removal of weight loss balloons from the US market in 1985, the next generation intragastric balloons (IGBs) were totally redesigned and have been successfully used for the last 17 years outside of the USA. The published results reveal an average weight loss of 12–15 kg over 6 months [116]. Nevertheless, current generation IGBs have limitations; they have been associated with (1) deflation and bowel obstruction, (2) loss of effect after 2 to 3 months, (3) limitation to a 6-month implantation time, (4) significant nausea, vomiting, and discomfort in the early implantation period, necessitating balloon extraction in 4–7% of patients [1, 2], (5) balloon extraction requiring purchase of a dedicated tool, and (6) difficulty adjusting volume after implantation—technically, the Allergan balloon can be adjusted, but it is time consuming, tedious, impractical, and has essentially not been done for the last 17 years. The Endogast device is an air-filled balloon that is adjustable; however, it requires percutaneous anchoring to the abdominal wall, tunneling of the inflation tube subcutaneously by a surgeon, and reports a 12.2% subcutaneous infection rate [17].

The introduction of the Spatz Adjustable Balloon system (ABS) offers features that address these limitations. The aim of this first-in-man study is to report early safety and effectiveness results, and to encourage discussions as to how to best utilize this new generation IGB for chronic endoscopic weight loss management.

Patients and Methods

Following Ethics committee approval at the University Hospital in Ostrava, Czech Republic, a 6-month first-in-man implantation study was undertaken in accordance with the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Patients were enrolled between October 2009 and March 2010. The primary endpoint was the absence of bowel obstruction, perforation, or significant hemorrhage. Additionally, weight loss at 12, 24, and 52 weeks and percent of excess weight loss (% EWL) were also assessed.

The Spatz ABS (Spatz FGIA, Inc., NY, USA) was used in 18 patients, who were selected according to criteria used by currently CE Marked IGBs. Inclusion criteria included BMI > 27 and those individuals in need of preoperative weight loss. Exclusion criteria were similar to the currently approved IGBs. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. Pre-implantation evaluation by a psychologist, dietician, and an experienced IGB endoscopist identified 18 patients appropriate for implantation. A binge eating scale was used to identify and exclude potential binge eaters. During the course of the study, the Ethics Committee approved extension of the implantation period to 12 months.

The Spatz ABS is composed of a silicone balloon that is mounted on a catheter on one surface. The catheter exits the balloon and has two loops that are perpendicular to each other, the larger of which has a metal chain that allows straightening of the curve, yet confers non-crushability (see Fig. 1). This non-collapsible loop maintains its 7-cm diameter in the gastric lumen and is meant to prevent or delay a deflated balloon from passing through the pylorus and duodenum and evade endoscopic extraction. A highly visible white valve is connected to a stretchable inflation tube that exits the catheter. The stretchable inflation tube can be pulled out of the stomach with a snare, enabling balloon volume adjustability, while the balloon remains in the stomach. A highly visible blue clasp at the end of the catheter allows easy extraction with a standard polypectomy snare. Calibrations on the pusher identify device position during the implantation procedure. The device is straightened with a guidewire and is inserted similar to the passage of an oro-gastric tube, with the removal of the guidewire and pusher once the device passes the gastro-esophageal junction. Generation 1 device was implanted in the first five patients (Figs. 1 and 2). Generation 2 device added a stabilizer band which maintained the larger loop in a closed position (Figs. 3 and 4). Thirteen patients were implanted with Generation 2 device. Balloons were deflated via the inflation valve or via needle catheter puncture, at the investigator’s discretion. Devices were extracted with a standard polypectomy snare.

Generation 2

Eighteen patients (15 female, three male) with a mean BMI of 37.3 (range 29.4–53.2), a mean weight of 108.8 kg (range 89–163), a mean excess weight of 46.3 kg (range 26.8–73.6), and a mean age of 39 (range 21–57) were implanted with the Spatz ABS. Patients were followed up by a dietician and a gastroenterologist on a regular basis (weeks 1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, 52, and 60 with the principal investigator and/or dietician). The first five patients were implanted with Generation 1 device. After three of the first five patients had distal catheter tip migration into the duodenum, a stabilizer band was created to keep the large loop of the catheter closed. The next 13 patients were implanted with the Generation 2 device. None had distal catheter tip migration into the duodenum. One patient had the small loop migrate into the duodenum on day 14 which was pulled back into the stomach endoscopically, and has not recurred.

The Spatz ABS was implanted following a standard endoscopy under the sedation of an anesthesiologist. The first patient underwent general anesthesia, while the subsequent patients underwent conscious sedation using a narcotic, and midazolam, with or without propofol, at the anesthesiologist’s discretion. The Spatz ABS was initially inflated with 400 ml of sterile normal saline, with the exception of three patients that were inflated with 350, 475, and 500 ml, respectively. The initial protocol called for externalizing the inflation tube valve by leaving the extension tube out of the mouth and securing to the side of the mouth. The idea was to inflate or deflate the balloon 4 h after the procedure according to patient symptoms—hence, the three different volumes (350, 375, and 500). The first three patients experienced discomfort when the valve was lowered back down the throat—the procedure was discontinued and the protocol was adjusted accordingly. The first five patients were observed overnight in the hospital, while the remaining patients were discharged on the day of the procedure. All patients were treated with Pantoprazole 40 mg BID for 30 days followed by 40 mg daily for the remainder of the implantation period. Anti-emetics and analgesics were prescribed for the first 3 days post-implantation. All patients were discharged on clear liquid diet for 3 days, followed by a 1,000-kcal diet.


The primary endpoint was met successfully by not having a single patient with a bowel obstruction, perforation, or significant hemorrhage. There were no deaths, and a single SAE (hospitalization) which was determined by the investigator to be unrelated to the IGB (patient no. 9 took double dose NSAID × 14 days).

Implantation times varied from 20 to 60 min on the first five patients due to a floppy guidewire. Subsequent implantation times in the remaining 13 patients ranged from 8 to 15 min.

Weight loss results are displayed in Table 1. Mean weight loss at 12 weeks was 11.1 kg with a 26% EWL. Mean weight loss at 24 weeks was 15.7 kg with a 36% EWL. Mean weight loss at 36 weeks was 20.4 kg with a 40.4% EWL. Mean weight loss at 52 weeks was 24.4 kg with a 48.8% EWL. Therefore, we also demonstrated that with the Spatz adjustable balloon, patients safely continue to lose weight beyond 6 months.

Follow-Up Visit Compliance

Follow-up visits with dietician and behavior modification experts have been shown to correlate with successful outcome [15]. We have defined successful outcome to be >25% EWL. Table 2 shows the direct correlation.


The first adjustment was performed without endoscopic observation. This led to inflation tube kinking and tube rupture. The balloon was removed without any adverse event. The following 16 adjustments were performed successfully (Table 3). Six patients underwent downward adjustments with a mean volume of 117 ml. Intolerance was alleviated, and they continued to lose weight, with a mean additional weight loss of 4.6 kg after the adjustment. The other ten patients were adjusted upward for weight loss plateau, with a mean addition of 188 ml. Their mean additional weight loss following adjustment was 7 kg.


Improvements or stability of comorbidities are shown in Table 4.

Adverse Events

Patients experienced varying degrees of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain after implantation. Our data does not suggest any correlation between degree of post-implantation symptoms and successful outcome (defined as >25% EWL). See Table 5.

Symptoms after adjustments were much lighter and better tolerated. See Table 6.

Seven of the 18 balloons (39%) were removed during the course of the study, as provided in detail in Table 7.

Patient no. 5 was noted to have moderate erosive gastritis at initial endoscopy, which, at the time was not deemed a contraindication to the implantation. Nausea and pain recurred at 6 weeks after implantation necessitating device removal. At explantation, the erosive gastritis had not healed in spite of Pantoprazole 40 mg BID, and Helicobacter pylori infection was documented. Follow-up endoscopy 2 months later, after treatment for H. pylori infection, revealed complete healing of the gastritis.

Patient no. 3 had an adjustment for diminished weight loss. The inflation was performed without re-introducing the endoscope to observe for inflation tube kinking. The tube was kinked and burst, requiring balloon extraction. The patient tolerated the procedure without clinical event.

Patient no. 6 reported to the principal investigator a sensation of balloon deflation for 1 month. Endoscopy revealed a completely deflated balloon with the anchor in the stomach. The balloon was removed without clinical event.

Patient no. 13 had a Mallory–Weiss tear several days after an adjustment. The device was removed, and the patient was sent home the same day. The patient’s hemoglobin was stable, and no additional clinical events were noted.

Patient no. 10 had a leak after her valve broke during her third adjustment procedure. The valve remained intact, connected to the balloon, but allowed a slow leak. The device was removed, and the patient was sent home the same day. The valve has two parts which were glued together. The two parts of the valve are now secured using heat welding.

Patient no. 9 took 2 weeks of Piroxicam 20 mg daily plus three to four doses of Ibuprofen daily every day for low back pain. She then presented with a gastric perforation. At laparotomy, a NSAID-induced perforating gastric ulcer was oversewn. The device was noted to be intact, and the perforation was deemed to be a SAE from NSAID overdose. The patient was discharged and did well postoperatively.

The first three cases took 20–60 min to implant due to a floppy guidewire. After substituting a stiffer guidewire, the remaining implantations took 8 to 15 min. Three patients with Generation 1 device (without the stabilizer band) had migration of the distal catheter into the duodenum. None with Generation 2 device had distal catheter migration. One patient with Generation 2 device (with stabilizer band) had passage of the small loop of the catheter into the duodenum. All four patients had the catheter pulled back to its normal position in the stomach and did not have a recurrence over the ensuing 20 or more weeks.

Patient no. 3 passed a sheared catheter in her bowel movement uneventfully. The chain end cut through the wall of the catheter and caused a shearing of the catheter. The balloon remained intact in her stomach and was subsequently removed uneventfully. The patient experienced upper abdominal discomfort intermittently over a 2-day period, prior to passage of the catheter. During the extraction procedure of patient no. 11, a deep laceration was noted in the proximal esophagus. The chain-end had sheared through the wall of the catheter (similar to patient no. 3) and scratched the esophagus during extraction. Barium swallow did not show an extravasation or perforation, but the surgeon elected to repair it surgically through a neck incision. She was discharged from the hospital 1 week later, without dysphagia.

Balloons were extracted by ensnaring the blue clasp with a polypectomy snare. During the course of this study, CE Mark was granted based on pre-clinical studies, literature review, technical file review, and preliminary results of this study. All engineering enhancements have been documented, verified, and validated according to the medical directive. As a result of the adverse events, several changes were made. (1) The IFU will stipulate “any erosive gastritis” as a contraindication. (2) A stretchable stabilizer band that spans the diameter of the large loop of the catheter was added. This keeps the catheter loop closed in the deployed position and resists opening of the loop, with the exception of insertion and extraction. (3) The metal chain will be curved and will have atraumatic ends surrounded by silicone glue to prevent catheter shearing. The addition of the stabilizer band also prevents catheter shear by preventing repetitive opening and closing of the loop. The catheter wall has now been reinforced with a strain relief band, as well. The catheter shear occurred on the radio-opaque stripe on the catheter wall—its weakest point. The “stripe” will be eliminated since the metal chain makes the “stripe” superfluous. (4) To address the small loop migration into the duodenum, a second chain and stabilizer band were added to the smaller loop in a post-market release. This addition caused difficulty in guidewire release during insertion. Since the migration of the small loop occurred in only one of 18 patients in our study (without recurrence) and caused minor nausea and vomiting, the second chain and stabilizer band have thus been removed.


Currently marketed IGBs, in their varying embodiments, are a static technology. The choice of balloon volume is made at the time of implantation—and is not easily changed. There is no way to gauge what size balloon is best for a specific patient, as the threshold for nausea vomiting and/or abdominal pain are not measurable or predictable. The loss of IGB efficacy after 3 months has been demonstrated convincingly in many studies [3, 16, 1822] and is considered a major drawback. This has led researchers to evaluate placement of a second balloon 1 month after removal of the first balloon. In a recent study, Lopez-Nava reported an additional drop of 2.6 points of BMI, following consecutive balloon placements in 112 patients [23]. In a similar study of consecutive BIB balloons, Genco reported a further drop of 3.9 points of BMI after the second balloon [24]. This upward adjustment was enacted using two consecutive “static” balloons—requiring two balloons and four endoscopic procedures. An adjustable balloon, on the other hand, offers dynamic bariatric therapy—requiring one balloon and three endoscopic procedures. Our study has shown the safety and efficacy of an adjustable balloon. Weight loss plateaus were treated with volume additions. Intolerance was successfully managed with a downward adjustment—patients regained their comfort, yet continued to lose weight. Both the downward and upward adjustments resulted in significant (4.6 and 8.1 kg, respectively) weight loss following the adjustment.

IGBs carry a risk of migration of the deflated balloon and bowel obstruction. The largest BIB series reported 19 incidents of early gastric/duodenal obstruction. Eight occurred in partially deflated balloons which entered and blocked the pylorus. The other 11 obstructions occurred with normally inflated balloons and could not be explained by the authors [25]. We have encountered only one episode of spontaneous balloon deflation in one of our early implantations. The one episode of balloon deflation was rectified by additional adhesive between the catheter and the balloon edge. Our incidents of duodenal migration of our distal catheter tip in our first generation device have prompted the addition of the stabilizer band, which appears to have successfully prevented distal catheter tip migration. The addition of a stretchable stabilizer band that “closes the loop” of the “anchor” and exerts a force against the straightening of the “anchor” seems to prevent entrance into the duodenum. The combination of the internal chain (prevents collapse of the loop) and the stabilizer band (prevents opening of the loop) maintain the “anchor” in a 7-cm diameter circle that hampers device migration in the event of balloon deflation—yet allows straightening for insertion and extraction.

Two critical reviews of IGBs have been reported in the literature, with similar overall positive results [1, 2]. IGBs are an established successful weight loss therapy with 5,000 patients reported in the literature over the last 17 years [316]. Only a handful of studies report negative or equivocal results [2628].Two randomized controlled trials (RCT) with crossover have been published [7, 29]. The Mathus-Vliegen study found no difference in weight loss between sham and BIB groups in the first 13 weeks of the study. However, after crossover, the BIB group lost 4.9 kg more than the sham group [29]. In contrast, the Genco RCT with crossover study did show a 12 kg greater weight loss for the BIB over the sham group in the first half of the study. After crossover, again, the BIB group lost 7 kg more than the sham group [7]. The mechanism of action for weight loss with the IGB may be multifactorial. Aside from the obvious space occupying effect of IGBs, Ghrelin levels (an appetite enhancing hormone discovered in the stomach) have been documented to decrease during balloon implantation in one study [4] and uncorrelated in another study [26]. Prolonged gastric emptying has also been demonstrated during IGB implantation [4].

Over 100,000 IGBs have been implanted worldwide, with an impressive safety record and reproducible efficacy. Nonetheless, there remain issues and risks with current IGB technology.

Early nausea has been reported in every published BIB study. In one review, early balloon removal was reported in 143 out of 3,442 patients (4.2%) in 13 of the articles reviewed [2]. In another review, early balloon removal was noted in 6.7%, but if the 2,515 patients in the Genco study were added then these numbers are halved [1]. Given the lack of volume adjustability in current IGBs, endoscopists aim for the highest tolerated balloon volume, at the risk of greater nausea and vomiting and early balloon removal. The correct volume is an unknown for each patient. An adjustable balloon, however, can start with a smaller volume balloon with the expectation of increasing volume after two to 3 months (or when weight loss diminishes), offering a more comfortable early period. Although we only report our first 18 patients, their early period has been comfortable, with two of our patients (patient nos. 11 and 14) requesting downward adjustment to combat intolerance. They remained in the study and continued to lose weight. Only an adjustable balloon can offer this advantage.

The 2008 Mathus-Vliegen review reported a 3.3–8% balloon deflation rate within 6 months. She found that 25% of the deflated balloons remained in the gastric lumen; 71% passed harmlessly in the stool and 4% required surgery to alleviate bowel obstruction [1]. It is widely accepted and intuitively reasonable to assume that deflation rates increase with longer acid exposure. Intestinal obstruction has been reported with deflated balloons [5, 6, 9, 25, 3032], and as such IGB removal at 6 months is mandated. The Spatz balloon “anchor” enhances endoscopic retrieval of a deflated balloon and will diminish the risk of bowel obstruction. This in turn has allowed a longer 6-month implantation, granted by the CE Mark. Only one of our patients had a balloon leak. The patient reported this to us 1 month after sensing the deflation. Upon balloon retrieval, the anchor was noted sitting in the gastric antrum with the deflated balloon attached. Although it is only one episode, it does confirm the anchor function. Whereas our early generation device had distal catheter entry into the pylorus in three of five patients, it did not occur in the 13 patients that had a stabilizer band added in the Generation 2 device. If a Spatz balloon does deflate, and even if there is catheter entry into the pylorus, migration of the device and deflated balloon would be significantly hampered by the catheter, internal chain, and stabilizer band—allowing time for endoscopic retrieval. Deflation of the Allergan intragastric balloons have reported a 4% chance of bowel obstruction [1]—it cannot be studied, but it has been suggested that deflated balloons leave the stomach within hours and leave a very short window of opportunity for endoscopic retrieval. There is no safeguard for preventing migration—other than methylene blue causing a change in urine color. The Spatz balloon is the first intragastric balloon to attempt a mechanical means to prevent balloon migration.

Weight loss maintenance after balloon extraction has been reported with mixed results [6, 12, 27, 28, 33]. One year after IGB removal, patients regained 75% [27], 41% [12], and 28% [28] of their lost weight. Crea reported a regain of three points of BMI 1 year after IGB removal; however, the maintenance of at least 10% of the body weight loss % was associated with an improvement in metabolic syndrome. Negrin Dastis reported the maintenance of at least 10% weight loss in 24% of patients at 2.5 years post-balloon explantation [29].

IGB programs stress continued follow-up for behavior modification which has limited success in the post-extraction period. Longer implantation times afford longer behavior modification times, which can presumably reap better weight loss maintenance results.

The overall function and safety of the device has been demonstrated in this pilot, first-in-man study. Although one balloon leaked and one valve malfunctioned (after third adjustment), these issues have been addressed with engineering enhancements. The presence of erosive gastritis has been shown to be a contraindication, as has been the use of NSAIDs. Our subject who double-dosed NSAIDs (Piroxicam and Ibuprofen) for 2 weeks developed a perforating NSAID ulcer—determined by the principal investigator to be unrelated to the device. One case of Mallory–Weiss tear after multiple bouts of vomiting is not unusual in this clinical setting. The episodes of catheter shear have been successfully addressed by engineering enhancements and will be reported in a forthcoming publication.

The Future

The introduction of an adjustable IGB with an attached “anchor” can potentially bring endoscopic “temporary” bariatric therapy to the level of endoscopic chronic weight management.

Our study is the first step towards changing the path of IGB therapy. The options are numerous. Sequential volume additions at every weight loss plateau, interspersed with 6 week “holidays” with a partially deflated balloon (to achieve a renewed effect), are now within our grasp. Trial of balloon deflation prior to extraction can identify potential relapsers (weight regain). The elimination of the obstruction risk by the “anchor” has allowed regulatory approval of 12 month implantation times. Longer implantation times afford greater weight loss, more effective behavior modification, and improved weight loss maintenance. Further studies will begin to tackle these questions. In the meantime, the technology has arrived.

Disclosures Dr. Jeffrey Brooks and Dr. Asher Kornbluth are shareholders in Spatz FGIA, Inc.

Conflicts of Interest Dr. Evžen Machytka, Dr. Pavel Klvana, Dr. Steven Peikin, Dr. L. Mathus-Vliegen, Dr. Christopher Gostout, Dr. Gontrand Lopez-Nava, and Dr. Scott Shikora have no conflict of interest.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

1.. Mathus-Vliegen EM. Intragastric balloon treatment for obesity: what does it really offer?Dig DisYear: 200826140410.1159/00010938518600014
2.. Imaz I,Martínez-Cervell C,García-Alvarez EE,et al. Safety and effectiveness of the intragastric balloon for obesity. A meta-analysisObes SurgYear: 2008187841610.1007/s11695-007-9331-818459025
3.. Bonazzi P,Petrelli MD,Lorenzini I,et al. Gastric emptying and intragastric balloon in obese patientsEur Rev Med Pharmacol SciYear: 200595 Suppl 1152116457125
4.. Mion F,Napoléon B,Roman S,et al. Effects of intragastric balloon on gastric emptying and plasma ghrelin levels in non-morbid obese patientsObes SurgYear: 2005154510610.1381/096089205372341115946431
5.. Evans JD,Scott MH. Intragastric balloon in the treatment of patients with morbid obesityBr J SurgYear: 20018891245810.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01840.x11531875
6.. Sallet JA,Marchesini JB,Paiva DS,et al. Brazilian multicenter study of the intragastric balloonObes SurgYear: 2004147991810.1381/096089204171967115329191
7.. Genco A,Cipriano M,Bacci V,et al. BioEnterics Intragastric Balloon (BIB): a short-term, double-blind, randomized, controlled, crossover study on weight reduction in morbidly obese patientsInt J Obes (Lond)Year: 20063011293310.1038/sj.ijo.080309416189503
8.. Doldi SB,Micheletto G,Perrini MN,et al. IGB; another option for treatment of obesity and morbid obesityHepatogastroenterologyYear: 20045155294715025034
9.. Roman S,Napoleon B,Mion F,et al. IGB for non-morbid obesity: a retrospective evaluation of tolerance and efficacyObes SurgYear: 20041445394410.1381/09608920432301358715130235
10.. Doldi SB,Micheletto G,Prisco F,et al. IGB in obese patientsObes SurgYear: 20001065788110.1381/09608920032159420011175969
11.. Al-Momen A,El-Mogy I. IGB for obesity; a retrospective evaluation of tolerance and efficacyObes SurgYear: 2005151101510.1381/096089205299355815760507
12.. Herve J,Wahlen CH,Schaeken A,et al. What becomes of patients 1 year after the IGB has been removed?Obes SurgYear: 20051568647010.1381/096089205422289415978160
13.. Melissas J,Mouzas J,Filis D,et al. The IGB—smoothing the path to bariatric surgeryObes SurgYear: 200616789790210.1381/09608920677782218816839490
14.. Busetto L,Segato G,Luca M,et al. Preoperative weight loss by IGB in super obese patients treated with laparoscopic gastric banding: a case control studyObes SurgYear: 2004145671610.1381/09608920432309347115186637
15.. Doldi SB,Micheletto G,Perrini MN,et al. Treatment of morbid obesity with IGB in association with dietObes SurgYear: 2002124583710.1381/09608920276225239812194556
16.. Totte E,Hendrickx L,Pauwels M,et al. Weight reduction by means of an intragastric device; experience with BIBObes SurgYear: 20011145192310.1381/09608920132120945911501367
17.. Gaggiotti G,Tack J,Garrido AB Jr,et al. Adjustable totally implantable intragastric prosthesis (ATIIP)-Endogast for treatment of morbid obesity: one-year follow-up of a multicenter prospective clinical surveyObes SurgYear: 20071779495610.1007/s11695-007-9174-317894156
18.. Alfalah H,Philippe B,Ghazal F,et al. Intragastric balloon for preoperative weight reduction in candidates for laparoscopic gastric bypass with massive obesityObes SurgYear: 20061621475010.1381/09608920677556510416469215
19.. Vandenplas Y,Bollen P,Langhe K,et al. Intragastric balloons in adolescents with morbid obesityEur J Gastroenterol HepatolYear: 1999113243510.1097/00042737-199903000-0000610333195
20.. Al Kahtani K,Khan MQ,Helmy A,et al. Bio-enteric intragastric balloon in obese patients: a retrospective analysis of King Faisal Specialist Hospital experienceObes SurgYear: 201020912192610.1007/s11695-008-9654-018752030
21.. Weiner R,Gutberlet H,Bockhorn H. Preparation of extremely obese patients for laparoscopic gastric banding by gastric balloon therapyObes surgYear: 19999261410.1381/09608929976555313310484312
22.. Mui WL,Ng EK,Tsung BY,et al. Impact on obesity-related illnesses and quality of life following intragastric balloonObes SurgYear: 201020811283210.1007/s11695-008-9766-619015930
23.. Lopez-Nava G,Angel Rubio M,Prados S,et al. BioEnterics® intragastric balloon (BIB®). Single ambulatory Spanish experience with 714 consecutive patients treated with one or two consecutive balloonsObes SurgYear: 20112115910.1007/s11695-010-0093-320306153
24.. Genco A,Cipriano M,Bacci V,et al. Intragastric balloon followed by diet vs. intragastric balloon followed by another balloon: a prospective study on 100 patientsObes SurgYear: 20102011149650010.1007/s11695-010-0231-y20661659
25.. Genco A,Bruni T,Doldi SB,et al. Bio enterics intragastric balloon: the italian experience with 2,515 patientsObes SurgYear: 20051581161410.1381/096089205500220216197790
26.. Martinez-Brocca MA,Belda O,Parejo J,et al. Intragastric balloon-induced satiety is not mediated by modification in fasting or postprandial plasma ghrelin levels in morbid obesityObes SurgYear: 20071756495710.1007/s11695-007-9109-z17658025
27.. Ganesh R,Rao AD,Baladas HG,et al. The Bioenteric® Intragastric Balloon(BIB®) as a treatment for obesity: poor results in Asian patientsSingapore Med JYear: 200748322717342292
28.. Mathus-Vliegen EM,Tytgat GN. Intragastric balloon for treatment-resistant obesity: safety, tolerance, and efficacy of 1-year balloon treatment followed by a 1-year balloon free follow upGastrointest EndoscYear: 200561192710.1016/S0016-5107(04)02406-X15672051
29.. Dastis NS,Francois E,Deviere J,et al. Intragastric balloon for weight loss: results in 100 individuals followed for at least 2.5 yearsEndoscopyYear: 2009415758010.1055/s-0029-121482619588283
30.. Eynden F,Urbain P. Small intestine gastric balloon impaction treated by laparoscopic surgeryObes SurgYear: 2001115646810.1381/0960892016055691311594113
31.. Francica G,Giardiello C,Scarano F,et al. Ultrasound diagnosis of IGB complications in obese patientsRadiol Med (Torino)Year: 2004l084380415525891
32.. Kim WY,Kirkpatrick UJ,Moody AP,et al. Large bowel impaction by the BIB necessitating surgical interventionAnn R Coll Surg EnglYear: 2000823202410858686
33.. Crea N,Pata G,Della Casa D,et al. Improvement of metabolic syndrome following intragastric balloon: 1 year follow-up analysisObes SurgYear: 2009191084810.1007/s11695-009-9879-619506981


[Figure ID: Fig1]
Fig. 1 

Inflated balloon without stabilizer band (deployed state in gastric lumen)

[Figure ID: Fig2]
Fig. 2 

Insertion assembly without stabilizer band

[Figure ID: Fig3]
Fig. 3 

Balloon with stabilizer band (arrow)

[Figure ID: Fig4]
Fig. 4 

Insertion assembly with stabilizer band (arrow)

[TableWrap ID: Tab1] Table 1 

Weight loss

Pt Device BMI Wt (kg) Excess wt (kg) Weight loss (kg)/% EWL Weight loss (kg)/% EWL Weight loss (kg)/% EWL Weight loss (kg)/% EWL
Week 12 Week 24 Week 36 Week 52
1 Gen 1 39 135 57 11 kg/19.3% 12 kg/21.1% 16 kg/28.1% 20.5 kg/35.1%
2 Gen 1 42 115 53 19 kg/35.8% 28 kg/52.8% 34 kg/64.2% 45 kg/85.4%
4 Gen 1 36 123 50 20 kg/40% 30 kg/60% 35.5 kg/71% 41 kg/82%
8 Gen 2 37 99 37 10 kg/27% 18 kg/48.6% 23.5 kg/63.9% 32 kg/86.5%
9 Gen 2 32 98 30 7 kg/23.3% 9 kg/30%
10 Gen 2 33 89 28 11 kg/39.3% 14 kg/50%
11 Gen 2 41 110 48 10 kg/20.8% 13 kg/27.1% 19 kg/39.8% 29 kg/60.4%
12 Gen 2 33 98 33 5 kg/15.2% 8 kg/24.2% 6 kg/18.3% 3 kg/9%
13 Gen 2 29 74 16 7 kg/43.8% 8 kg/50%
14 Gen 2 39 117 47 14 kg/29.8% 20 kg/42.6% 22 kg/47% 15 kg/32%
15 Gen 2 44 135 67 13 kg/19.4% 20 kg/29.9% 29.5 kg/43.8% 30 kg/45%
16 Gen 2 51 133 74 10 kg/13.5% 9 kg/12.2% 5.5 kg/8.2% Lost to f/u
17 Gen 2 46 141 73 13 kg/17.8% 22 kg/30.1% 22 kg/30.1% 20 kg/27.4%
18 Gen 2 37 98 32 6 kg/18.8% 8 kg/25% 10 kg/31% 8 kg/25%
Mean 11.1 kg/26% 15.7 kg/36% 20.4 kg/40% 24.4 kg/48.8%

[TableWrap ID: Tab2] Table 2 


Patients Compliance Patients with >25% EWL
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18 Excellent (7); Very good (6) 10/13
1, 9, 12, 16, 17 Fair (2); Poor (3) 2/5

Excellent = attended all visits; Very good = attended >50% of visits; Fair = attended <50% of visits; Poor = attended <25% of visits

[TableWrap ID: Tab3] Table 3 


Patient no. BMI Weight (kg) Week of adjustment Amount adjusted (+/−) ml Weight lost prior to adjustment (kg/week) Additional weight lost after adjustment (kg/week)
1 39 135 26 +200 13 kg/26 weeks 7.5 kg/26 weeks
2 42 115 18 +125 23 kg/18 weeks 22 kg/34 weeks
4 36 123 20 +150 25.5 kg/20 weeks 10 kg/13 weeks
4 32 −150 35.5 kg/33 weeks 5.5 kg/19 weeks
9 32 98 10 +200 4 kg/10 weeks 5 kg/14 weeks
10 33 89 4 −50 6.5 kg/4 weeks 0.5 kg/4 weeks
10 9 +150 7 kg/8 weeks 7.5 kg/16 weeks
11 41 110 2 −50 8 kg/2 weeks 21 kg/50 weeks
12 33 98 13 +150 4.5 kg/13 weeks 3.5 kg/11 weeks
12 −150 8 kg/24 weeks +5 kg/28 weeks
14 39 117 1 −100 6.8 kg/1 week 8.2 kg/51 weeks
15 44 135 12 +200 13 kg/12 weeks 17 kg/40 weeks
16 51 133 24 +300 8.5 kg/24 weeks +3 kg/12 weeks
18 37 98 14 +200 6 kg/14 weeks 2 kg/38 weeks
17 45 141 24 −100 21 kg/24 weeks +1 kg/28 weeks
13 29 74 24 +200 8 kg/24 weeks Mallory–Weiss tear 3 days later. Balloon removed
Upward adjustment yielded an additional 7 kg weight loss post-adjustment
Downward adjustment alleviated intolerance and yielded additional 4.6 kg weight loss post-adjustment
Adjustment procedure times ranged from 4–10 min and averaged 8 min. All were done under conscious sedation.

[TableWrap ID: Tab4] Table 4 


Patient no. Comorbidity Weight loss/Time Comment
5 Diabetes 16 kg/6 months DM stable
Hypertension BP Controlled
17 Diabetes 21.5 kg/6 months HbA1c from 5.9 to 4.2
3 Hypertension 24 kg/6 months BP to 100/60 Meds stopped
13 Hypertension 8 kg/6 months BP controlled

[TableWrap ID: Tab5] Table 5 

Post-implantation symptoms:

Patients Severity Patients with >25% EWL
1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 18, Mild 4/6
2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17 Moderate 3/6
4, 6, 11, 14, 15, 16 Severe 5/6

Mild = <2 days vomiting, and <3 vomits per day; Moderate = 2–5 days of vomiting or vomit up to 5× a day; Severe = >6 vomits/day or > 5 days of vomiting

[TableWrap ID: Tab6] Table 6 

Post-adjustment symptoms

Symptom No. of episodes/day Duration Severity % of patients w/symptom
Nausea 1–2 days Mild 20%
Vomiting 1–2 per day 1–2 days Mild 50%
Abdominal pain 0 0 0 0%

[TableWrap ID: Tab7] Table 7 

Device removals

Patient no. Event Week no. Relation to device/procedure Comment
7 Pregnancy 8 Unrelated Removed during second trimester
5 Erosive gastritisa 6 Device related Patient implanted with mod-severe erosive gastritis that did not heal with PPI
3 Inflation tube leaka 8 Procedural error First adjustment performed without endoscopic observation
6 Balloon leaka 18 Device related malfunction Early generation device had insufficient glue between balloon and catheter
13 Mallory–Weiss teara 24 Procedure related Vomiting after adjustment
10 Valve brokea 28 Device related Two parts of the valve bonded by glue (newer model uses improved heat bonding)
9 Gastric perforationa 28 Unrelated Patient took double dose NSAIDS (piroxicam and ibuprofen) × 14 days for low back pain

aDiscussions about each patient are explained in the text

Article Categories:
  • Clinical Report

Keywords: Keywords Intragastric balloon, Adjustable balloon, Inflation tube, “Holiday” period, Prolonged implantation, Weight loss.

Previous Document:  A 5-Year Prospective Quality of Life Analysis Following Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding for ...
Next Document:  NMR assignment and secondary structure of the C-terminal DNA binding domain of Arabidopsis thaliana ...