OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and effectiveness of the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) as compared to the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and the open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (ORYGB) for the treatment of obesity and obesity-related diseases. BACKGROUND: LSG is a newer procedure being done with increasing frequency. However, limited data are currently available comparing LSG to the other established procedures. We present the first prospective, multiinstitutional, nationwide, clinically rich, bariatric-specific data comparing sleeve gastrectomy to the adjustable gastric band, and the gastric bypass. METHODS: This is the initial report analyzing data from the American College of Surgeons-Bariatric Surgery Center Network accreditation program, and its prospective, longitudinal, data collection system based on standardized definitions and collected by trained data reviewers. Univariate and multivariate analyses compare 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year outcomes including morbidity and mortality, readmissions, and reoperations as well as reduction in body mass index (BMI) and weight-related comorbidities. RESULTS: One hundred nine hospitals submitted data for 28,616 patients, from July, 2007 to September, 2010. The LSG has higher risk-adjusted morbidity, readmission and reoperation/intervention rates compared to the LAGB, but lower reoperation/intervention rates compared to the LRYGB and ORYGB. There were no differences in mortality. Reduction in BMI and most of the weight-related comorbidities after the LSG also lies between those of the LAGB and the LRYGB/ORYGB. CONCLUSION: LSG has morbidity and effectiveness positioned between the LAGB and the LRYGB/ORYGB for data up to 1 year. As obesity is a lifelong disease, longer term comparative effectiveness data are most critical, and are yet to be determined.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and effectiveness of the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) as compared to the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and the open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (ORYGB) for the treatment of obesity and obesity-related diseases. BACKGROUND: LSG is a newer procedure being done with increasing frequency. However, limited data are currently available comparing LSG to the other established procedures. We present the first prospective, multiinstitutional, nationwide, clinically rich, bariatric-specific data comparing sleeve gastrectomy to the adjustable gastric band, and the gastric bypass. METHODS: This is the initial report analyzing data from the American College of Surgeons-Bariatric Surgery Center Network accreditation program, and its prospective, longitudinal, data collection system based on standardized definitions and collected by trained data reviewers. Univariate and multivariate analyses compare 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year outcomes including morbidity and mortality, readmissions, and reoperations as well as reduction in body mass index (BMI) and weight-related comorbidities. RESULTS: One hundred nine hospitals submitted data for 28,616 patients, from July, 2007 to September, 2010. The LSG has higher risk-adjusted morbidity, readmission and reoperation/intervention rates compared to the LAGB, but lower reoperation/intervention rates compared to the LRYGB and ORYGB. There were no differences in mortality. Reduction in BMI and most of the weight-related comorbidities after the LSG also lies between those of the LAGB and the LRYGB/ORYGB. CONCLUSION: LSG has morbidity and effectiveness positioned between the LAGB and the LRYGB/ORYGB for data up to 1 year. As obesity is a lifelong disease, longer term comparative effectiveness data are most critical, and are yet to be determined.
Authors: John J Kelly; Scott Shikora; Daniel B Jones; Matthew H Hutter; Malcolm K Robinson; John Romanelli; Frederick Buckley; Andrew Lederman; George L Blackburn; David Lautz Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2009-02-19 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: D Cottam; F G Qureshi; S G Mattar; S Sharma; S Holover; G Bonanomi; R Ramanathan; P Schauer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2006-04-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: George L Blackburn; Matthew M Hutter; Alan M Harvey; Caroline M Apovian; Hannah R W Boulton; Susan Cummings; John A Fallon; Isaac Greenberg; Michael E Jiser; Daniel B Jones; Stephanie B Jones; Lee M Kaplan; John J Kelly; Rayford S Kruger; David B Lautz; Carine M Lenders; Robert Lonigro; Helen Luce; Anne McNamara; Ann T Mulligan; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Frank M Perna; Janey S A Pratt; Stancel M Riley; Malcolm K Robinson; John R Romanelli; Edward Saltzman; Roman Schumann; Scott A Shikora; Roger L Snow; Stephanie Sogg; Mary A Sullivan; Michael Tarnoff; Christopher C Thompson; Christina C Wee; Nancy Ridley; John Auerbach; Frank B Hu; Leslie Kirle; Rita B Buckley; Catherine L Annas Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2009-02-19 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Hideo Takahashi; Andrew T Strong; Alfredo D Guerron; John H Rodriguez; Matthew Kroh Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Mario Musella; Antonio Susa; Emilio Manno; Maurizio De Luca; Francesco Greco; Marco Raffaelli; Stefano Cristiano; Marco Milone; Paolo Bianco; Antonio Vilardi; Ivana Damiano; Gianni Segato; Laura Pedretti; Piero Giustacchini; Domenico Fico; Gastone Veroux; Luigi Piazza Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: B S Lennerz; M Wabitsch; H Lippert; S Wolff; C Knoll; R Weiner; T Manger; W Kiess; C Stroh Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Matthew L Maciejewski; David E Arterburn; Lynn Van Scoyoc; Valerie A Smith; William S Yancy; Hollis J Weidenbacher; Edward H Livingston; Maren K Olsen Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 14.766