BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are the most performed procedures worldwide (92 %) nowadays. However, comparative clinical trials are scarce in literature. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the three most performed bariatric procedures. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective, matched cohort study was conducted. Patients were eligible for analysis when a primary procedure was performed between 2007 and 2010 in one of the two specialized bariatric centers. Primary outcome was weight loss, expressed in the percentage excess weight loss (%EWL). Secondary outcome parameters are hospital stay, complication rate, and revisional surgery. RESULTS: In total, 735 patients, 245 in each group, were included for analysis. The groups were comparable for age and gender after matching. Mean postoperative follow-up was 3.1 ± 1.2 years. LAGB patients showed less %EWL compared to LSG and LRYGB at all postoperative follow-up visits. LRYGB showed a %EWL of 71 ± 20 % compared to LSG (76 ± 23 %; p=0.008) after 1-year follow-up; thereafter, no significant difference was observed. After 3 years of follow-up, LAGB showed a higher complication rate compared to LSG and LRYGB (p<0.05). Revisional surgery after LAGB was needed in 21 %, while 9 % of the LSG underwent conversion to RYGB. CONCLUSIONS: LRYGB is a safe and effective treatment in morbid obese patients with good long-term outcomes. LSG seems to be an appropriate alternative as a definitive procedure, in terms of weight reduction and complication rate. LAGB is inferior to both LRYGB and LSG.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are the most performed procedures worldwide (92 %) nowadays. However, comparative clinical trials are scarce in literature. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the three most performed bariatric procedures. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective, matched cohort study was conducted. Patients were eligible for analysis when a primary procedure was performed between 2007 and 2010 in one of the two specialized bariatric centers. Primary outcome was weight loss, expressed in the percentage excess weight loss (%EWL). Secondary outcome parameters are hospital stay, complication rate, and revisional surgery. RESULTS: In total, 735 patients, 245 in each group, were included for analysis. The groups were comparable for age and gender after matching. Mean postoperative follow-up was 3.1 ± 1.2 years. LAGB patients showed less %EWL compared to LSG and LRYGB at all postoperative follow-up visits. LRYGB showed a %EWL of 71 ± 20 % compared to LSG (76 ± 23 %; p=0.008) after 1-year follow-up; thereafter, no significant difference was observed. After 3 years of follow-up, LAGB showed a higher complication rate compared to LSG and LRYGB (p<0.05). Revisional surgery after LAGB was needed in 21 %, while 9 % of the LSG underwent conversion to RYGB. CONCLUSIONS: LRYGB is a safe and effective treatment in morbid obesepatients with good long-term outcomes. LSG seems to be an appropriate alternative as a definitive procedure, in terms of weight reduction and complication rate. LAGB is inferior to both LRYGB and LSG.
Authors: David Nocca; Fabre Guillaume; Patrick Noel; Marie Christine Picot; Rajesh Aggarwal; Moez El Kamel; Roxanne Schaub; Charles de Seguin de Hons; Eric Renard; Jean Michel Fabre Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Ann Y Chung; Paula D Strassle; Francisco Schlottmann; Marco G Patti; Meredith C Duke; Timothy M Farrell Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 3.452