Emma Osland1, Rossita M Yunus, Shahjahan Khan, Breda Memon, Muhammed A Memon. 1. *Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston †Department of Human Movements and Nutrition ¶Mayne Medical School, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane §School of Agricultural, Computational and Environmental Sciences, International Centre for Applied Climate Sciences and Centre for Health Sciences Research, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba ∥Sunnybank Obesity Centre, South & East Queensland Surgery (SEQS), Sunnybank #Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia ‡Institute of Mathematical Sciences, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia **Faculty of Health and Social Science, Bolton University, Bolton, Lancashire, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) have been proposed as cost-effective strategies to manage morbid obesity. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the postoperative weight loss outcomes reported in randomized control trials (RCTs) for LVSG versus LRYGB procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs comparing the weight loss outcomes following LVSG and LRYGB in adult population between January 2000 and November 2015 were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The review was prepared in accordance with Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: Nine unique RCTs described over 10 publications involving a total of 865 patients (LVSG, n=437; LRYGB, n=428) were analyzed. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Twelve-month excess weight loss (EWL) for LVSG ranged from 69.7% to 83%, and for LRYGB, ranged from 60.5% to 86.4%. A number of studies reported slow weight gain between the second and third years of postoperative follow-up ranging from 1.4% to 4.2%EWL. This trend was seen to continue to 5 years postoperatively (8% to 10%EWL) for both procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, LRYGB and LVSG are comparable with regards to the weight loss outcomes in the short term, with LRYGB achieving slightly greater weight loss. Slow weight recidivism is observed after the first postoperative year following both procedures. Long-term reporting of outcomes obtained from well-designed studies using intention-to-treat analyses are identified as a major gap in the literature at present.
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) have been proposed as cost-effective strategies to manage morbid obesity. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the postoperative weight loss outcomes reported in randomized control trials (RCTs) for LVSG versus LRYGB procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs comparing the weight loss outcomes following LVSG and LRYGB in adult population between January 2000 and November 2015 were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The review was prepared in accordance with Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: Nine unique RCTs described over 10 publications involving a total of 865 patients (LVSG, n=437; LRYGB, n=428) were analyzed. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Twelve-month excess weight loss (EWL) for LVSG ranged from 69.7% to 83%, and for LRYGB, ranged from 60.5% to 86.4%. A number of studies reported slow weight gain between the second and third years of postoperative follow-up ranging from 1.4% to 4.2%EWL. This trend was seen to continue to 5 years postoperatively (8% to 10%EWL) for both procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, LRYGB and LVSG are comparable with regards to the weight loss outcomes in the short term, with LRYGB achieving slightly greater weight loss. Slow weight recidivism is observed after the first postoperative year following both procedures. Long-term reporting of outcomes obtained from well-designed studies using intention-to-treat analyses are identified as a major gap in the literature at present.
Authors: Rinki Murphy; Michael G Clarke; Nicholas J Evennett; S John Robinson; M Lee Humphreys; Hisham Hammodat; Bronwen Jones; David D Kim; Richard Cutfield; Malcolm H Johnson; Lindsay D Plank; Michael W C Booth Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Mario Masrur; Roberto Bustos; Lisa Sanchez-Johnsen; Luis Gonzalez-Ciccarelli; Alberto Mangano; Raquel Gonzalez-Heredia; Ronak Patel; Kirstie K Danielson; Antonio Gangemi; Enrique Fernando Elli Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Artur Marc-Hernández; Jaime Ruiz-Tovar; Jose M Jimenez; Miguel A Carbajo; Maria Lopez; Maria J Cao; Maria J Castro Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Joshua Dilday; Michael Derickson; John Kuckelman; Cara Reitz; Eric Ahnfeldt; Matthew Martin; J Paul Sanders Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 4.129