BACKGROUND:Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is one of the most widely used bariatric procedures today, and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is becoming increasingly popular. The aim of this study was to compare mid-term results of both procedures. METHODS:From January 2008 to December 2008, 117 obese patients were assigned by patient choice after informed consent to either a LRYGB procedure (n=75) or a LSG procedure (n=42). We determined operative time, length of stay, morbidity, comorbidity outcomes, failures, and excess weight loss at 5 years. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable in demographic characteristics and comorbidities at baseline. No significant statistical differences were found in length of stay and early major morbidity, but mean operative time was shorter in LSG group, p<0.05. Follow-up was achieved in 74 patients (63.2 %) at 5 years, and major complications (early and late) were 10 (21.2 %) for the LRYGB group and 3 (11.1 %) for the LSG group, p>0.05. Five years after surgery, the percentage of excess weight loss was similar in both groups (69.8 % for LRYGB and 67.3 % for LSG, p>0.05). Failures were more common for LSG group, 22.2 versus 12.7 % for LRYGB group, but this difference was not significant, p>0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques are comparable regarding safety and effectiveness after 5 years of follow-up, so not one procedure is clearly superior to the other.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is one of the most widely used bariatric procedures today, and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is becoming increasingly popular. The aim of this study was to compare mid-term results of both procedures. METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2008, 117 obesepatients were assigned by patient choice after informed consent to either a LRYGB procedure (n=75) or a LSG procedure (n=42). We determined operative time, length of stay, morbidity, comorbidity outcomes, failures, and excess weight loss at 5 years. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable in demographic characteristics and comorbidities at baseline. No significant statistical differences were found in length of stay and early major morbidity, but mean operative time was shorter in LSG group, p<0.05. Follow-up was achieved in 74 patients (63.2 %) at 5 years, and major complications (early and late) were 10 (21.2 %) for the LRYGB group and 3 (11.1 %) for the LSG group, p>0.05. Five years after surgery, the percentage of excess weight loss was similar in both groups (69.8 % for LRYGB and 67.3 % for LSG, p>0.05). Failures were more common for LSG group, 22.2 versus 12.7 % for LRYGB group, but this difference was not significant, p>0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques are comparable regarding safety and effectiveness after 5 years of follow-up, so not one procedure is clearly superior to the other.
Authors: Andrew E Chapman; George Kiroff; Philip Game; Bruce Foster; Paul O'Brien; John Ham; Guy J Maddern Journal: Surgery Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Abeezar I Sarela; Simon P L Dexter; Mary O'Kane; Ashok Menon; Michael J McMahon Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Arezou Yaghoubian; Amy Tolan; Bruce E Stabile; Amy H Kaji; Gary Belzberg; Edward Mun; Robert Zane Journal: Am Surg Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: J Picot; J Jones; J L Colquitt; E Gospodarevskaya; E Loveman; L Baxter; A J Clegg Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Aleksander Antoniewicz; Piotr Kalinowski; Kamila J Kotulecka; Piotr Kocoń; Rafał Paluszkiewicz; Piotr Remiszewski; Krzysztof Zieniewicz Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 4.129