Maher El Chaar1, Nadine Hammoud, George Ezeji, Leonardo Claros, Maureen Miletics, Jill Stoltzfus. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Bariatric and Minimally Invasive Surgery, St Luke's University Hospital and Health Network, Medical School of Temple University, 1736 Hamilton Boulevard, Allentown, PA, 18104, USA, Maher.Elchaar@sluhn.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) is a relatively new procedure that is gaining wide acceptance. However, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) remains one of the most commonly performed bariatric procedures with the best long-term results. There are few studies comparing LSG with LRYGB. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and outcome of LSG to LRYG in a single accredited center. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively on patients undergoing either LSG or LRYGB between January 2009 and December 2012 was performed. LSG was performed using 36Fr bougie, while LRYGB was perfromed with a 25-mm circular stapler. The primary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), 30-day complication and readmission rates, and excess weight loss (%EWL) at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. LSG patients were also divided into different categories based on BMI and their %EWL compared to LRYGB. RESULTS: A total of 885 patients were included in our analysis. 547 patients underwent LRYGB (61.8 %) and 338 underwent LSG (38.2 %). Thirty-day complication and readmission rates for LRYGB and LSG were (1.5 and 5.1 % vs 0.6 and 0.3 %, respetively, p > 0.05). %EWL for LRYGB was significantly higher than LSG at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. LSG with a BMI <40 achieved a similar %EWL to LRYGB in the first 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: LSG seems to have a better safety profile in the short-term compared to LRYGB. However, at 2 years, LRYGB patients achieved a significantly higher EWL compared to LSG patients. Randomized clinical trials are needed to better elucidate our findings.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) is a relatively new procedure that is gaining wide acceptance. However, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) remains one of the most commonly performed bariatric procedures with the best long-term results. There are few studies comparing LSG with LRYGB. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and outcome of LSG to LRYG in a single accredited center. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively on patients undergoing either LSG or LRYGB between January 2009 and December 2012 was performed. LSG was performed using 36Fr bougie, while LRYGB was perfromed with a 25-mm circular stapler. The primary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), 30-day complication and readmission rates, and excess weight loss (%EWL) at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. LSG patients were also divided into different categories based on BMI and their %EWL compared to LRYGB. RESULTS: A total of 885 patients were included in our analysis. 547 patients underwent LRYGB (61.8 %) and 338 underwent LSG (38.2 %). Thirty-day complication and readmission rates for LRYGB and LSG were (1.5 and 5.1 % vs 0.6 and 0.3 %, respetively, p > 0.05). %EWL for LRYGB was significantly higher than LSG at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. LSG with a BMI <40 achieved a similar %EWL to LRYGB in the first 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: LSG seems to have a better safety profile in the short-term compared to LRYGB. However, at 2 years, LRYGB patients achieved a significantly higher EWL compared to LSG patients. Randomized clinical trials are needed to better elucidate our findings.
Authors: Lars Sjöström; Anna-Karin Lindroos; Markku Peltonen; Jarl Torgerson; Claude Bouchard; Björn Carlsson; Sven Dahlgren; Bo Larsson; Kristina Narbro; Carl David Sjöström; Marianne Sullivan; Hans Wedel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Laurent Biertho; Rudolf Steffen; Ruth Branson; Natascha Potoczna; Thomas Ricklin; Grazyna Piec; Fritz F Horber Journal: Surgery Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Ninh T Nguyen; Jeffrey Root; Kambiz Zainabadi; Allen Sabio; Sara Chalifoux; C Melinda Stevens; Shahrzad Mavandadi; Mario Longoria; Samuel E Wilson Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2005-12
Authors: Matthew M Hutter; Bruce D Schirmer; Daniel B Jones; Clifford Y Ko; Mark E Cohen; Ryan P Merkow; Ninh T Nguyen Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Melinda A Maggard; Lisa R Shugarman; Marika Suttorp; Margaret Maglione; Harvey J Sugerman; Harvey J Sugarman; Edward H Livingston; Ninh T Nguyen; Zhaoping Li; Walter A Mojica; Lara Hilton; Shannon Rhodes; Sally C Morton; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-04-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Hady Razak Hady; Jacek Dadan; Maria Sołdatow; Robert Jerzy Ladny; Paweł Gołaszewski; Eugeniusz Wróblewski; Andrzej Dąbrowski Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 1.195
Authors: F S Wehrtmann; J R de la Garza; K F Kowalewski; M W Schmidt; K Müller; C Tapking; P Probst; M K Diener; L Fischer; B P Müller-Stich; F Nickel Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Felix Nickel; Javier R de la Garza; Fabian S Werthmann; Laura Benner; Christian Tapking; Emir Karadza; Anna-Laura Wekerle; Adrian T Billeter; Hannes G Kenngott; Lars Fischer; Beat Peter Müller-Stich Journal: Obes Facts Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 3.942
Authors: David Arterburn; Robert Wellman; Ana Emiliano; Steven R Smith; Andrew O Odegaard; Sameer Murali; Neely Williams; Karen J Coleman; Anita Courcoulas; R Yates Coley; Jane Anau; Roy Pardee; Sengwee Toh; Cheri Janning; Andrea Cook; Jessica Sturtevant; Casie Horgan; Kathleen M McTigue Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 25.391