Aleksey A Novikov1, Cheguevara Afaneh2, Monica Saumoy1, Viviana Parra3, Alpana Shukla4, Gregory F Dakin2, Alfons Pomp2, Enad Dawod1, Shawn Shah1, Louis J Aronne4, Reem Z Sharaiha5. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, 1305 York Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY, 10021, USA. 2. Division of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, 520 East 70th Street, Starr 8, New York, NY, 10021, USA. 3. Clínica Universitaria Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia. 4. Division of Endocrinology, Weill Cornell Medicine, 525 E. 68th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA. 5. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, 1305 York Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY, 10021, USA. rzs9001@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a novel endobariatric procedure. Initial studies demonstrated an association of ESG with weight loss and improvement of obesity-related comorbidities. Our aim was to compare ESG to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). METHODS: We included 278 obese (BMI > 30) patients who underwent ESG (n = 91), LSG (n = 120), or LAGB (n = 67) at our tertiary care academic center. Primary outcome was percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included adverse events (AE), length of stay (LOS), and readmission rate. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up, LSG achieved the greatest %TBWL compared to LAGB and ESG (29.28 vs 13.30 vs 17.57%, respectively; p < 0.001). However, ESG had a significantly lower rate of morbidity when compared to LSG or LAGB (p = 0.01). The LOS was significantly less for ESG compared to LSG or LAGB (0.34 ± 0.73 vs 3.09 ± 1.47 vs 1.66 ± 3.07 days, respectively; p < 0.01). Readmission rates were not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.72). CONCLUSION: Although LSG is the most effective option for weight loss, ESG is a safe and feasible endobariatric option associated with low morbidity and short LOS in select patients.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a novel endobariatric procedure. Initial studies demonstrated an association of ESG with weight loss and improvement of obesity-related comorbidities. Our aim was to compare ESG to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). METHODS: We included 278 obese (BMI > 30) patients who underwent ESG (n = 91), LSG (n = 120), or LAGB (n = 67) at our tertiary care academic center. Primary outcome was percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included adverse events (AE), length of stay (LOS), and readmission rate. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up, LSG achieved the greatest %TBWL compared to LAGB and ESG (29.28 vs 13.30 vs 17.57%, respectively; p < 0.001). However, ESG had a significantly lower rate of morbidity when compared to LSG or LAGB (p = 0.01). The LOS was significantly less for ESG compared to LSG or LAGB (0.34 ± 0.73 vs 3.09 ± 1.47 vs 1.66 ± 3.07 days, respectively; p < 0.01). Readmission rates were not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.72). CONCLUSION: Although LSG is the most effective option for weight loss, ESG is a safe and feasible endobariatric option associated with low morbidity and short LOS in select patients.
Authors: Lars Sjöström; Anna-Karin Lindroos; Markku Peltonen; Jarl Torgerson; Claude Bouchard; Björn Carlsson; Sven Dahlgren; Bo Larsson; Kristina Narbro; Carl David Sjöström; Marianne Sullivan; Hans Wedel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Steven A Edmundowicz; Sreenivasa Jonnalagadda; Nitin Kumar; Michael Larsen; Shelby Sullivan; Christopher C Thompson; Subhas Banerjee Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Reem Z Sharaiha; Nikhil A Kumta; Monica Saumoy; Amit P Desai; Alex M Sarkisian; Andrea Benevenuto; Amy Tyberg; Rekha Kumar; Leon Igel; Elizabeth C Verna; Robert Schwartz; Christina Frissora; Alpana Shukla; Louis J Aronne; Michel Kahaleh Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: John B Buse; Sonia Caprio; William T Cefalu; Antonio Ceriello; Stefano Del Prato; Silvio E Inzucchi; Sue McLaughlin; Gordon L Phillips; R Paul Robertson; Francesco Rubino; Richard Kahn; M Sue Kirkman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Steven H Belle; Paul D Berk; William H Chapman; Nicholas J Christian; Anita P Courcoulas; Greg F Dakin; David R Flum; Mary Horlick; Wendy C King; Carol A McCloskey; James E Mitchell; Emma J Patterson; John R Pender; Kristine J Steffen; Richard C Thirlby; Bruce M Wolfe; Susan Z Yanovski Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Viktoria L Gloy; Matthias Briel; Deepak L Bhatt; Sangeeta R Kashyap; Philip R Schauer; Geltrude Mingrone; Heiner C Bucher; Alain J Nordmann Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-10-22
Authors: Ben Gys; Philip Plaeke; Bas Lamme; Thierry Lafullarde; Niels Komen; Anthony Beunis; Guy Hubens Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Thiago Ferreira de Souza; Antonio C Madruga Neto; Martin Andres Coronel; Eduardo Grecco; Luiz Gustavo Quadros; Marco Silva; Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Manoel Dos Passos Galvão Neto Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Shailendra Singh; Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura; Ahmad Khan; Mohammad Bilal; Michele B Ryan; Christopher C Thompson Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 4.734