Salman Yousuf Guraya1, Tim Strate2. 1. Vice Dean College of Medicine University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. Electronic address: salmanguraya@gmail.com. 2. Head of the Department of Surgery, Reinbek Hospital, Academic Teaching Hospital of the University of Hamburg, Hamburger Straße 33, D-21465, Reinbek, Germany. Electronic address: tim.strate@krankenhaus-reinbek.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are commonly performed weight loss procedures worldwide. Unfortunately, few studies have compared percentage total weight loss (%TWL) following these procedures. This research compared short-term, mid-term and long-term %TWL by LRYGB and LSG. METHODS: Selected databases were searched for original articles that compared %TWL by LSG and LRYGB. Review manager 5.3 was used for data analysis. Effect summary was presented by forest plot. RESULTS: A significantly better %TWL in 5 years was shown by LRYGB than LSG; pooled mean difference (MD) 1.87 (95% CI 0.27-3.48, z statistics = 2.28, p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed better %TWL by LRYGB than LSG at 24 months pooled MD 6.47 (95% CI 1.22-11.72, z statistics = 2.42, p < 0.05), however, better %TWL by LSG was noted after 36 months (pooled MD -0.23; 95% CI -0.39-0.06, z statistics = 2.65, p < 0.05). Finally, significantly better %TWL was noted for LRYGB at 60 months. CONCLUSION: This study shows %TWL of 70.4% by LRYGB and 59.8% following LSG in at least half of patients from selected cohort. A significantly greater %TWL by LRYGB in short and long term, while higher %TWL by LSG in mid-term is reported.
OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are commonly performed weight loss procedures worldwide. Unfortunately, few studies have compared percentage total weight loss (%TWL) following these procedures. This research compared short-term, mid-term and long-term %TWL by LRYGB and LSG. METHODS: Selected databases were searched for original articles that compared %TWL by LSG and LRYGB. Review manager 5.3 was used for data analysis. Effect summary was presented by forest plot. RESULTS: A significantly better %TWL in 5 years was shown by LRYGB than LSG; pooled mean difference (MD) 1.87 (95% CI 0.27-3.48, z statistics = 2.28, p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed better %TWL by LRYGB than LSG at 24 months pooled MD 6.47 (95% CI 1.22-11.72, z statistics = 2.42, p < 0.05), however, better %TWL by LSG was noted after 36 months (pooled MD -0.23; 95% CI -0.39-0.06, z statistics = 2.65, p < 0.05). Finally, significantly better %TWL was noted for LRYGB at 60 months. CONCLUSION: This study shows %TWL of 70.4% by LRYGB and 59.8% following LSG in at least half of patients from selected cohort. A significantly greater %TWL by LRYGB in short and long term, while higher %TWL by LSG in mid-term is reported.
Authors: Khalid R Murshid; Ghassan H Alsisi; Fayruz A Almansouri; Maram M Zahid; Alaa A Boghdadi; Enas H Mahmoud Journal: J Taibah Univ Med Sci Date: 2021-01-19