Shailendra Singh1, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura2, Ahmad Khan3, Mohammad Bilal4, Monica Chowdhry3, Michele B Ryan2, Ahmad Najdat Bazarbashi2, Christopher C Thompson2. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Charleston Division, Charleston, WV, USA. shail121@gmail.com. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Charleston Division, Charleston, WV, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to individually evaluate IGB and ESG procedures and compare the efficacy, durability, and safety of these procedures. METHODS: Bibliographic databases were systematically searched for studies investigating the use of IGB and ESG for the treatment of obesity. Studies reporting percent total weight loss (%TWL) or percent excess weight loss (%EWL) with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included in the final analysis. Only 1 study directly compared ESG to IGB, 9 studies evaluated ESG alone, while 18 studies evaluated IGB. At 12-month follow-up after ESG, mean %TWL was 17.51 (95% CI 16.44-18.58), and %EWL was 60.51 (95% CI 54.39-66.64). Mean %TWL and %EWL after IGB at 12 months was 10.35 (95% CI 8.38-12.32) and 29.65 (95% CI 25.40-33.91), respectively. Mean %TWL and %EWL after IGB were significantly decreased at 18 or 24 months compared to 6 months indicating weight regain after IGB removal. ESG achieved significantly superior weight loss compared to IGB, the difference in mean %TWL was 7.33 (95% CI 5.22-9.44, p value = 0.0001) at 12 months. Serious adverse events were observed in < 5% for both procedures. CONCLUSION: Although ESG and IGB are safe and effective for weight loss, our study suggests that ESG results in more significant and sustained weight loss. Nevertheless, a variety of approaches are essential to care for this underserved population, and there are several factors other than weight loss that should be considered in selecting the ideal therapy for individual patients.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to individually evaluate IGB and ESG procedures and compare the efficacy, durability, and safety of these procedures. METHODS: Bibliographic databases were systematically searched for studies investigating the use of IGB and ESG for the treatment of obesity. Studies reporting percent total weight loss (%TWL) or percent excess weight loss (%EWL) with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included in the final analysis. Only 1 study directly compared ESG to IGB, 9 studies evaluated ESG alone, while 18 studies evaluated IGB. At 12-month follow-up after ESG, mean %TWL was 17.51 (95% CI 16.44-18.58), and %EWL was 60.51 (95% CI 54.39-66.64). Mean %TWL and %EWL after IGB at 12 months was 10.35 (95% CI 8.38-12.32) and 29.65 (95% CI 25.40-33.91), respectively. Mean %TWL and %EWL after IGB were significantly decreased at 18 or 24 months compared to 6 months indicating weight regain after IGB removal. ESG achieved significantly superior weight loss compared to IGB, the difference in mean %TWL was 7.33 (95% CI 5.22-9.44, p value = 0.0001) at 12 months. Serious adverse events were observed in < 5% for both procedures. CONCLUSION: Although ESG and IGB are safe and effective for weight loss, our study suggests that ESG results in more significant and sustained weight loss. Nevertheless, a variety of approaches are essential to care for this underserved population, and there are several factors other than weight loss that should be considered in selecting the ideal therapy for individual patients.
Authors: Sérgio Barrichello; Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura; Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux de Moura; Pichamol Jirapinyo; Anna Carolina Hoff; Ricardo José Fittipaldi-Fernandez; Giorgio Baretta; João Henrique Felício Lima; Eduardo N Usuy; Leonardo Salles de Almeida; Flavio M Ramos; Felipe Matz; Manoel Dos Passos Galvão Neto; Christopher C Thompson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Peter B Cotton; Glenn M Eisen; Lars Aabakken; Todd H Baron; Matt M Hutter; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Albert Nemcek; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Irving M Pike; Linda Rabeneck; Joseph Romagnuolo; John J Vargo Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: A Courcoulas; B K Abu Dayyeh; L Eaton; J Robinson; G Woodman; M Fusco; V Shayani; H Billy; D Pambianco; C Gostout Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Antonio Afonso de Miranda Neto; Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura; Igor Braga Ribeiro; Ahmad Khan; Shailendra Singh; Alberto Machado da Ponte Neto; Antonio Coutinho Madruga Neto; Epifanio Silvino do Monte Junior; Francisco Tustumi; Wanderley Marques Bernardo; Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-05 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: Nicola Crea; Giacomo Pata; Domenico Della Casa; Luigi Minelli; Giovanni Maifredi; Ernesto Di Betta; Francesco Mittempergher Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Manoel Galvao Neto; Rena C Moon; Luiz Gustavo de Quadros; Eduardo Grecco; Admar Concon Filho; Thiago Ferreira de Souza; Luis Augusto Mattar; Jose Americo Gomides de Sousa; Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Helmut Morais; Felipe Matz; Muhammad A Jawad; Andre F Teixeira Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura; Anna Carolina Batista Dantas; Igor Braga Ribeiro; Thomas R McCarty; Flávio Roberto Takeda; Marco Aurelio Santo; Sergio Carlos Nahas; Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2022-02-27
Authors: Andrea Telese; Vinay Sehgal; Cormac G Magee; S Naik; S A Alqahtani; L B Lovat; Rehan J Haidry Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 4.488