BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become popular due to its technical ease and excellent short-term results. Understanding the risk profile of LSG compared with the gold standard laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is critical for patient selection. OBJECTIVES: To use traditional regression techniques and random forest classification algorithms to compare LSG with LRYGB using the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Data Registry. SETTING: United States. METHODS: Outcomes were leak, morbidity, and mortality within 30 days. Variable importance was assessed using random forest algorithms. Multivariate models were created in a training set and evaluated on the testing set with receiver operating characteristic curves. The adjusted odds of each outcome were compared. RESULTS: Of 134,142 patients, 93,062 (69%) underwent LSG and 41,080 (31%) underwent LRYGB. One hundred seventy-eight deaths occurred in 96 (.1%) of LSG patients compared with 82 (.2%) of LRYGB patients (P<.001). Morbidity occurred in 8% (5.8% in LSG versus 11.7% in LRYGB, P<.001). Leaks occurred in 1% (.8% in LSG versus 1.6% in LRYGB, P<.001). The most important predictors of all outcomes were body mass index, albumin, and age. In the adjusted multivariate models, LRYGB had higher odds of all complications (leak: odds ratio 2.10, P<.001; morbidity: odds ratio 2.02, P<.001; death: odds ratio 1.64, P<.01). CONCLUSION: In the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvements data registry for 2015, LSG had half the risk-adjusted odds of death, serious morbidity, and leak in the first 30 days compared with LRYGB.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become popular due to its technical ease and excellent short-term results. Understanding the risk profile of LSG compared with the gold standard laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is critical for patient selection. OBJECTIVES: To use traditional regression techniques and random forest classification algorithms to compare LSG with LRYGB using the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Data Registry. SETTING: United States. METHODS: Outcomes were leak, morbidity, and mortality within 30 days. Variable importance was assessed using random forest algorithms. Multivariate models were created in a training set and evaluated on the testing set with receiver operating characteristic curves. The adjusted odds of each outcome were compared. RESULTS: Of 134,142 patients, 93,062 (69%) underwent LSG and 41,080 (31%) underwent LRYGB. One hundred seventy-eight deaths occurred in 96 (.1%) of LSG patients compared with 82 (.2%) of LRYGB patients (P<.001). Morbidity occurred in 8% (5.8% in LSG versus 11.7% in LRYGB, P<.001). Leaks occurred in 1% (.8% in LSG versus 1.6% in LRYGB, P<.001). The most important predictors of all outcomes were body mass index, albumin, and age. In the adjusted multivariate models, LRYGB had higher odds of all complications (leak: odds ratio 2.10, P<.001; morbidity: odds ratio 2.02, P<.001; death: odds ratio 1.64, P<.01). CONCLUSION: In the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvements data registry for 2015, LSG had half the risk-adjusted odds of death, serious morbidity, and leak in the first 30 days compared with LRYGB.
Authors: ThucNhi T Dang; Jerry T Dang; Muhammad Moolla; Noah Switzer; Karen Madsen; Daniel W Birch; Shahzeer Karmali Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Richard Welbourn; Marianne Hollyman; Robin Kinsman; John Dixon; Ronald Liem; Johan Ottosson; Almino Ramos; Villy Våge; Salman Al-Sabah; Wendy Brown; Ricardo Cohen; Peter Walton; Jacques Himpens Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Natalie Liu; Meghan C Cusack; Manasa Venkatesh; Anisa L Pontes; Grace Shea; Dillon C Svoboda; Jacob A Greenberg; Anne O Lidor; Luke M Funk Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Tom Wiggins; Dimitri J Pournaras; Elena Priestman; Alan Osborne; Daniel R Titcomb; Ian Finlay; James Hopkins; Marianne Hollyman; Matthew Mason; Hamish Noble; David Mahon; Richard Welbourn Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Eliza A Conaty; Woody Denham; Stephen P Haggerty; John G Linn; Raymond J Joehl; Michael B Ujiki Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 4.129