Alan A Saber1, Saeed Shoar2, Mahmoud W Almadani2, Natan Zundel3, Mohammed J Alkuwari4, Moataz M Bashah4, Raul J Rosenthal5. 1. Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Department of Surgery, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Brooklyn, NY, USA. saber6231@gmail.com. 2. Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Department of Surgery, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Brooklyn, NY, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 4. Qatar Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery Summit (QIMBSS), Hamad Medical Corporation, Weill Cornell Medical College, Doha, Qatar. 5. Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Section of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The intragastric balloon (IGB) is an adjunctive treatment for obesity. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IGB treatment by reviewing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A total of 20 RCTs involving 1195 patients were identified. Weight loss results before and after 3 months were analyzed separately. The weight loss results of patients with and without IGB treatment were compared. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis calculated the following significant effect sizes: 1.59 and 1.34 kg/m2 for overall and 3-month BMI loss, respectively; 14.25 and 11.16 % for overall and >3-month percentage of excess weight loss, respectively; 4.6 and 4.77 kg for overall and 3-month weight loss, respectively; and 2.81, 1.62, and 4.09 % for overall, 3-month, and >3-month percent of weight loss, respectively. A significant effect size was calculated that favored fluid-filled IGBs over air-filled IGBs. Flatulence (8.75 vs. 3.89 %, p = 0.0006), abdominal fullness (6.32 vs. 0.55 %, p = 0.001), abdominal pain (13.86 vs. 7.2 %, p = 0.0001), abdominal discomfort (4.37 vs. 0.55 %, p = 0.006), and gastric ulcer (12.5 vs. 1.2 %, p < 0.0001) were significantly more prevalent among IGB patients than among non-IGB control patients. No mortality was reported from IGB treatment. CONCLUSION: IGB treatment, in addition to lifestyle modification, is an effective short-term modality for weight loss. However, there is not sufficient evidence confirming its safety or long-term efficacy.
BACKGROUND: The intragastric balloon (IGB) is an adjunctive treatment for obesity. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IGB treatment by reviewing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A total of 20 RCTs involving 1195 patients were identified. Weight loss results before and after 3 months were analyzed separately. The weight loss results of patients with and without IGB treatment were compared. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis calculated the following significant effect sizes: 1.59 and 1.34 kg/m2 for overall and 3-month BMI loss, respectively; 14.25 and 11.16 % for overall and >3-month percentage of excess weight loss, respectively; 4.6 and 4.77 kg for overall and 3-month weight loss, respectively; and 2.81, 1.62, and 4.09 % for overall, 3-month, and >3-month percent of weight loss, respectively. A significant effect size was calculated that favored fluid-filled IGBs over air-filled IGBs. Flatulence (8.75 vs. 3.89 %, p = 0.0006), abdominal fullness (6.32 vs. 0.55 %, p = 0.001), abdominal pain (13.86 vs. 7.2 %, p = 0.0001), abdominal discomfort (4.37 vs. 0.55 %, p = 0.006), and gastric ulcer (12.5 vs. 1.2 %, p < 0.0001) were significantly more prevalent among IGB patients than among non-IGB control patients. No mortality was reported from IGB treatment. CONCLUSION: IGB treatment, in addition to lifestyle modification, is an effective short-term modality for weight loss. However, there is not sufficient evidence confirming its safety or long-term efficacy.
Authors: Jaime Ponce; George Woodman; James Swain; Erik Wilson; Wayne English; Sayeed Ikramuddin; Eric Bour; Steven Edmundowicz; Brad Snyder; Flavia Soto; Shelby Sullivan; Richard Holcomb; John Lehmann Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: A Genco; T Bruni; S B Doldi; P Forestieri; M Marino; L Busetto; C Giardiello; L Angrisani; L Pecchioli; P Stornelli; F Puglisi; M Alkilani; A Nigri; N Di Lorenzo; F Furbetta; A Cascardo; M Cipriano; M Lorenzo; N Basso Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Nitin Kumar; Steven A Edmundowicz; Sreenivasa Jonnalagadda; Michael Larsen; Shelby Sullivan; Christopher C Thompson; Subhas Banerjee Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: R B Hogan; J H Johnston; B W Long; J Q Sones; L A Hinton; J Bunge; S A Corrigan Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1989 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: George A Bray; William E Heisel; Ashkan Afshin; Michael D Jensen; William H Dietz; Michael Long; Robert F Kushner; Stephen R Daniels; Thomas A Wadden; Adam G Tsai; Frank B Hu; John M Jakicic; Donna H Ryan; Bruce M Wolfe; Thomas H Inge Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 19.871
Authors: Aaron S Kelly; Marsha D Marcus; Jack A Yanovski; Susan Z Yanovski; Stavroula K Osganian Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 5.095