Jonathan D Zellmer1, Michelle A Mathiason2, Kara J Kallies2, Shanu N Kothari3. 1. Department of Medical Education, Gundersen Health System, 1900 South Avenue, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA. 2. Department of Medical Research, Gundersen Medical Foundation, Gundersen Health System, 1900 South Avenue, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA. 3. Department of General and Vascular Surgery, Gundersen Health System, 1900 South Avenue, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA. Electronic address: snkothar@gundersenhealth.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is the current "gold standard" bariatric procedure in the United States. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has recently become a commonly performed procedure for many reasons, including patients' perception that LSG has less complexity and invasiveness, and lower risk. Our objective was to review the literature and compare the leak rates, morbidity, and mortality for LRYGB versus LSG. METHODS: Publications from 2002 to 2012 with n greater than or equal to 25 and postoperative leak rate reported were included. Statistical analysis included chi-square according to patient number. RESULTS: Twenty-eight (10,906 patients) LRYGB and 33 (4,816 patients) LSG articles were evaluated. Leak rates after LRYGB versus LSG were 1.9% (n = 206) versus 2.3% (n = 110), respectively (P = .077). Mortality rates were .4% (27/7,117) for LRYGB and .2% (7/3,594) for LSG (P = .110). Timing from surgery to leak ranged from 1 to 12 days for LRYGB versus 1 to 35 days for LSG. CONCLUSIONS: Leak and mortality rates after LRYGB and LSG were comparable. The appropriate procedure should be tailored based on patient factors, comorbidities, patient and surgeon comfort level, surgeon experience, and institutional outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is the current "gold standard" bariatric procedure in the United States. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has recently become a commonly performed procedure for many reasons, including patients' perception that LSG has less complexity and invasiveness, and lower risk. Our objective was to review the literature and compare the leak rates, morbidity, and mortality for LRYGB versus LSG. METHODS: Publications from 2002 to 2012 with n greater than or equal to 25 and postoperative leak rate reported were included. Statistical analysis included chi-square according to patient number. RESULTS: Twenty-eight (10,906 patients) LRYGB and 33 (4,816 patients) LSG articles were evaluated. Leak rates after LRYGB versus LSG were 1.9% (n = 206) versus 2.3% (n = 110), respectively (P = .077). Mortality rates were .4% (27/7,117) for LRYGB and .2% (7/3,594) for LSG (P = .110). Timing from surgery to leak ranged from 1 to 12 days for LRYGB versus 1 to 35 days for LSG. CONCLUSIONS: Leak and mortality rates after LRYGB and LSG were comparable. The appropriate procedure should be tailored based on patient factors, comorbidities, patient and surgeon comfort level, surgeon experience, and institutional outcomes.
Authors: K Hope Wilkinson; Melissa Helm; Kathleen Lak; Rana M Higgins; Jon C Gould; Tammy L Kindel Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Fabian Schmidt; Rudolf Mennigen; Thorsten Vowinkel; Philipp A Neumann; Norbert Senninger; Daniel Palmes; Mike G Laukoetter Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Raquel Sánchez-Santos; Ricard Corcelles Codina; Ramon Vilallonga Puy; Salvadora Delgado Rivilla; Jose Vicente Ferrer Valls; Javier Foncillas Corvinos; Carlos Masdevall Noguera; Maria Socas Macias; Pedro Gomes; Carmen Balague Ponz; Jorge De Tomas Palacios; Sergio Ortiz Sebastian; Andres Sanchez-Pernaute; Jose Julian Puche Pla; Daniel Del Castillo Dejardin; Julen Abasolo Vega; Ester Mans Muntwyler; Ana Garcia Navarro; Carlos Duran Escribano; Norberto Cassinello Fernández; Nieves Perez Climent; Jose Antonio Gracia Solanas; Francisca Garcia-Moreno Nisa; Alberto Hernández Matias; Victor Valentí Azcarate; Jose Eduardo Perez Folques; Inmaculada Navarro Garcia; Eduardo Dominguez-Adame Lanuza; Sagrario Martinez Cortijo; Jesus González Fernández Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 4.129