David Goitein1,2,3, Asnat Raziel4, Amir Szold4, Nasser Sakran4,5,6. 1. Department of Surgery C, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, 52621, Tel Hashomer, Israel. david.goitein@sheba.health.gov.il. 2. Sackler Medical School, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. david.goitein@sheba.health.gov.il. 3. Assia Medical, Assuta Hospital, Tel Aviv, Israel. david.goitein@sheba.health.gov.il. 4. Assia Medical, Assuta Hospital, Tel Aviv, Israel. 5. Department of Surgery A, Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel. 6. Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGBP) is the gold-standard procedure for the treatment of morbid obesity. It has been reported to be somewhat more efficient and durable than laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, it is considered more invasive and, therefore, more hazardous. There is a lack of unity in complication reporting following bariatric surgery. Thus, there is a possible misconception regarding the relative safety of the two major bariatric procedures performed worldwide. This may have contributed to a shift in practice with LSG gaining momentum "at the expense" of LRYGBP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative safety of primary LSG and LRYGBP according to the Clavien-Dindo complication grading system. METHODS: A total of 2651 and 554 patients underwent primary LSG and LRYGBP, respectively at three high-volume centers. Thirty-day perioperative complications were recorded and graded. Length of hospital stays (LOS) and readmission rates were collected as well. RESULTS: Complications occurred in 110 (3.7%) and 24 (4.3%) patients following LSG and LRYGBP, respectively (p = 0.9). No significant difference was found between the groups regarding overall and complication-grade-specific rates. Individual complication types were unevenly distributed, but not significantly so. Patients with complications were older than those without (47 and 43 years, respectively; p = 0.01). Gender was not a risk factor for complication. Median LOS and readmission rates were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: LSG and LRYGBP are equally safe, at least in the perioperative period. Acknowledging and conveying this finding to surgeons and patients alike is important and might cause a pendulum shift in the distribution of bariatric procedures performed.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGBP) is the gold-standard procedure for the treatment of morbid obesity. It has been reported to be somewhat more efficient and durable than laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, it is considered more invasive and, therefore, more hazardous. There is a lack of unity in complication reporting following bariatric surgery. Thus, there is a possible misconception regarding the relative safety of the two major bariatric procedures performed worldwide. This may have contributed to a shift in practice with LSG gaining momentum "at the expense" of LRYGBP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative safety of primary LSG and LRYGBP according to the Clavien-Dindo complication grading system. METHODS: A total of 2651 and 554 patients underwent primary LSG and LRYGBP, respectively at three high-volume centers. Thirty-day perioperative complications were recorded and graded. Length of hospital stays (LOS) and readmission rates were collected as well. RESULTS: Complications occurred in 110 (3.7%) and 24 (4.3%) patients following LSG and LRYGBP, respectively (p = 0.9). No significant difference was found between the groups regarding overall and complication-grade-specific rates. Individual complication types were unevenly distributed, but not significantly so. Patients with complications were older than those without (47 and 43 years, respectively; p = 0.01). Gender was not a risk factor for complication. Median LOS and readmission rates were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: LSG and LRYGBP are equally safe, at least in the perioperative period. Acknowledging and conveying this finding to surgeons and patients alike is important and might cause a pendulum shift in the distribution of bariatric procedures performed.
Authors: Andrew L Weinstein; Bryan J Marascalchi; Matthew A Spiegel; John K Saunders; Angela Fagerlin; Manish Parikh Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: David Goitein; Ibrahim Matter; Asnat Raziel; Andrei Keidar; David Hazzan; Uri Rimon; Nasser Sakran Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 14.766
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
Authors: Richdeep S Gill; Sumit R Majumdar; Christian F Rueda-Clausen; Sameer Apte; Daniel W Birch; Shahzeer Karmali; Arya M Sharma; Scott Klarenbach; Raj S Padwal Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: U K Coblijn; C A L de Raaff; S M Lagarde; S M M de Castro; B C Vrouenraets; B A van Wagensveld Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Hugo Meunier; Benjamin Menahem; Yannick Le Roux; Adrien Lee Bion; Yoann Marion; Antoine Vallois; Nicolas Contival; Thomas Gautier; Jean Lubrano; Anaïs Briant; Jean-Jacques Parienti; Arnaud Alves Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 4.129