Clinical Outcomes of Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding

Revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after gastric banding leads to sustainable and significant additional weight loss regardless of Roux limb length

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes between patients undergoing very-very long limb RYGB (VVLL-RYGB) and proximal RYGB (PRYGB) after adjustable gastric banding (LAGB).

METHODS

All patients undergoing conversion from LAGB to RYGB in a bariatric reference center between 2010 and 2016 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients (80 ​% female, mean age 44.5 ​± ​9 years, pre-revisional BMI 40.2 ​± ​7.4 ​kg/m2) underwent conversion from LAGB to VVLL-RYGB, and 26 patients (88 ​% female, mean age 46.9 ​± ​7.6 years, pre-revisional BMI 37.2 ​± ​5.3 ​kg/m2) to PRYGB. ΔBMI 5 years after conversion was 8.2 ​± ​6.1 ​kg/m2 in VVLL-RYGB compared to 6.7 ​± ​5.1 ​kg/m2 in PRYGB (p ​= ​0.35). There was no significant difference in long-term morbidity. Further revisional procedures after VVLL-RYGB occurred in 10 (15.1 ​%) and 8 (30.8 ​%) after PRYGB (p ​= ​0.136).

CONCLUSION

VVLL-RYGB and PRYGB after LAGB are safe and lead to significant and sustainable additional weight loss without difference in BMI loss between the procedures after 5 years.

Revisional One-Step Bariatric Surgical Techniques After Unsuccessful Laparoscopic Gastric Band: A Retrospective Cohort Study with 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has high reported rates of revision due to poor weight loss (WL) and high complication rates. Yet, there is yet to be a consensus on the best revisional procedure after unsuccessful LAGB, and studies comparing different revisional procedures after LAGB are still needed.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study that compared the outcomes of one-step revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (rOAGB), or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (rLSG) after LAGB. WL, complications, resolution of associated medical conditions, and food tolerance were assessed with a post hoc pairwise comparison one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) throughout a 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 102 (rRYGB), 80 (rOAGB), and 70 (rLSG) patients. After 2 years, an equal percentage of excess weight loss was observed in rOAGB and rRYGB (both >90%; p=0.998), significantly higher than that in rLSG (83.6%; p<0.001). In our study, no leaks were observed. rRYGB had higher complication rates according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (10.8% vs. 3.75% and 5.7% in rOAGB and rLSG, respectively, p=0.754), and re-operations were not statistically significant. Food tolerance was comparable between rOAGB and rRYGB (p = 0.987), and both had significantly better food tolerance than rLSG (p<0.001). The study cohorts had comparable resolution rates for associated medical problems (p>0.60).

CONCLUSION

rOAGB and rRYGB had better outcomes after LAGB than rLSG regarding WL, feasibility, food tolerance, and safety. rOAGB had significantly higher rates of nutritional deficiencies.

Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Revisional Procedure Following Adjustable Gastric Banding: Variations in Outcomes Based on Indication

BACKGROUND

Significant controversy exists regarding the indications and outcomes after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) conversions to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

AIM

To comprehensively determine the long-term outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure after LAGB across a range of measures and determine predictors of outcomes.

METHODS

Six hundred revision LSG (RLSG) and 1200 controls (primary LSG (PLSG)) were included. Patient demographics, complications, follow-up, and patient-completed questionnaires were collected.

RESULTS

RLSG vs controls; females 87% vs 78.8%, age 45 ± 19.4 vs 40.6 ± 10.6 years, p = 0.561; baseline weight 119.7 ± 26.2 vs 120.6 ± 26.5 kg p = 0.961). Follow-up was 87% vs 89.3%. Weight loss in RLSG at 5 years, 22.9% vs 29.6% TBWL, p = 0.001, 10 years: 19.5% vs 27% TBWL, p = 0.001. RLSG had more complications (4.8 vs 2.0% RR 2.4, p = 0.001), re-admissions (4.3 vs 2.4% RR 1.8, p = 0.012), staple line leaks (2.5 vs 0.9%, p = 0.003). Eroded bands and baseline weight were independent predictors of complications after RLSG. Long-term re-operation rate was 7.3% for RLSG compared to 3.2% in controls. Severe oesophageal dysmotility predicted poor weight loss. RLSG reported lower quality of life scores (SF-12 physical component scores 75.9 vs 88%, p = 0.001), satisfaction (69 vs 93%, p = 0.001) and more frequent regurgitation (58% vs 42%, p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

RLSG provides long-term weight loss, although peri-operative complications are significantly elevated compared to PLSG. Longer-term re-operation rates are elevated compared to PLSG. Four variables predicted worse outcomes: eroded band, multiple prior bands, severe oesophageal dysmotility and elevated baseline weight.

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as Conversion Procedure of Failed Gastric Banding: Short-Term Outcomes of 1295 Patients in One Single Center

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has high technical and weight loss failure rates. We evaluate here the 1-year morbidity, mortality, and weight loss of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y-gastric bypass (LRYGB) as a feasible conversion strategy.

METHODS

Patients with a failed primary LAGB who underwent LRYGB from July 2004 to December 2019 were selected from an electronic database at our center. Patients had a conversion to LRYGB at the same time (one-stage approach) or with a minimum of 3 months in between (two-stage approach). Primary outcomes included 30-day morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes were body mass index (BMI), percent excess weight loss (%EWL), and percent excess BMI lost (%EBMIL) at 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 1295 patients underwent a conversion from LAGB to LRYGB at our center: 1167 patients (90.1%) in one stage and 128 patients (9.9%) in two stages. There was no mortality. An early (30-day) postoperative complication occurred in 93 patients (7.2%), with no significant difference found between groups. Hemorrhage was the most common complication in 39 patients (3.0%), and the reoperation was required in 19 patients (1.4%). At 1 year postoperatively, the mean BMI was 28.0 kg/m2, the mean %EWL 72.8%, and the mean %EBMIL 87.0%. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to LRYGB can be considered as a safe and effective option with low complication rate and good weight loss outcomes at 1 year. One-stage conversion provides the same early outcome as two-step surgery with a competent surgeon.

One-stage versus two-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass as redo surgery of failed adjustable gastric banding

INTRODUCTION

The study focussed on whether a one-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass (OS-RYGB) or a two-stage RYGB (TS-RYGB) has a significant advantage in terms of perioperative risk in patients after failed adjustable gastric banding (AGB).

METHODS

Data collection included patients who underwent OS-RYGB or TS-RYGB after AGB between 2005 and 2019 and whose outcomes were compared with those after primary RYGB (P-RYGB). Outcome criteria were perioperative complications, comorbidities, 30-day mortality and operating time.

RESULTS

The study analysed data from patients who underwent OS-RYGB (N = 525), TS-RYGB (N = 382) and P-RYGB (N = 26,445). Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were significantly lower for P-RYGB (p < 0.001). Total intraoperative and specific postoperative complication rates were significantly lower in TS-RYGB than in OS-RYGB (p = 0.048 and p < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, the total general postoperative complication rate was lower in OS-RYGB than in TS-RYGB (p < 0.001). The mean operating time differed significantly among the three groups (P-RYGB 96.5min, OS-RYGB 141.2min and TS-RYGB 190.9min; p < 0.001). The mortality rate was not significantly different between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the significant difference between the two groups in revision surgery and the slight difference with the results of primary RYGB, this study concludes that removal of a failed AGB is safe and feasible with either the OS- or TS-RYGB procedure. However, we cannot directly recommend either procedure in our study. Proper patient selection and surgeon experience are critical to avoid potential adverse effects.

Revisional bariatric surgery after adjustable gastric band: a multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS)

BACKGROUND

Adjustable gastric band (AGB) hadbeen the preferred treatment for morbid obesity because it is minimally invasive and reversible. But now it seems to be slowly becoming a historic procedure due to the disappointing effects. The aim of the study was to systematize and present the available data on revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) after AGB among Polish patients.

METHODS

It is a multicenter, retrospective analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic RBS after AGB in 12 Polish bariatric centers. The database included patient demographics, comorbidities and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The group consisted of 234 patients who underwent AGB, which accounted for 29% of revisional cases recorded in the Polish Revisional Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS). 195 were women (83%), and 39 were men (17%). One hundred seventy-five patients after AGB experienced a weight regain (74.5%), 36 patients a gastric band slippage (15.0%), 14 patients had gastric band intolerance (6.0%). Types of RBS included 116 sleeve gastrectomies (SG) (49.4%), 86 Roux-en Y gastric by-passes (RYGB) (36.6%), 20 one anastomosis gastric by-passes (OAGB) (8,5%). The highest weight loss expressed as %EBMIL was observed after OAGB (63.5 ± 32.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The main indication for RBS after AGB was weight regain. SG was the most frequently chosen type of RBS after AGB. RBS after AGB leads to weight loss and improvement in type 2 diabetes and hypertension with an acceptable low risk of complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05108532.

Revisional Surgery After Adjustable Gastric Banding: Sleeve Gastrectomy or Gastric Bypass?

Adjustable gastric banding was the most common type of bariatric surgery performed in Korea prior to 2019. Many patients that have undergone this procedure require revisional bariatric surgery while removing the gastric band, and it is important to select an appropriate revisional procedure. If reoperation is performed owing to insufficient weight loss or weight regain, a 1-step procedure can be considered. However, a 2-step procedure is preferred when complications such as band erosion or stomach perforation have occurred. Previous studies from Western countries have shown that revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) can achieve more effective postoperative weight loss than revisional sleeve gastrectomy, although this procedure may also carry a higher risk of morbidity, reoperation, and readmission to hospital. In Korea, the short-term outcomes of the 2 procedures may be similar. However, the potential risk of gastric cancer in the remnant stomach after RYGB must also be considered. The type of revisional surgery should be selected following discussions with the patient regarding the advantages and disadvantages associated with each procedure.

Long-Term Outcomes after Adolescent Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is a safe and effective treatment option for adolescents with severe obesity, but no long-term studies are available with more than10 years of follow-up data to document sustained improved outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 96 patients who completed MBS at 21 years of age or younger in a tertiary academic center 2002 to 2010 were contacted for a telehealth visit. Body weight, comorbidity status, social/physical function status, and long-term complications were evaluated 10 to 18 years after surgery.

RESULTS

Mean participant (83% female, 75% Hispanic) age at MBS was 18.8 (±1.6) years (median age 19 years, range 15-21 years), and median pre-MBS BMI was 44.7 kg/m 2 (SD 6.5). At follow-up (mean 14.2 [±2.2] years) post-MBS (90.6% Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [RYGB] or 8.3% laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding [LAGB]) mean total body weight decreased by 31.3% (interquartile range [IQR] 20.0% to 38.9%); 32.0% (IQR, 21.3% to 40.1%) among RYGB participants and 22.5% (IQR, 0.64% to 28.3%) among LAGB participants. Patients with pre-MBS hyperlipidemia (14.6%), asthma (10.4%), and diabetes/hyperglycemia (5.2%) reported 100% remission at follow-up (p < 0.05 for all). Pre-post decrease in hypertension (13.5% vs 1%, p = 0.001), sleep apnea (16.7% vs 1.0%, p < 0.001), gastroesophageal reflux disease (13.5% vs 3.1%, p = 0.016), anxiety (7.3% vs 2.1%, p = 0.169), and depression (27.1% vs 4.2%, p < 0.001) were also found.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant sustained reductions in weight and comorbidities, and low rates of long-term complications, a decade or more after completing MBS as an adolescent were found. These findings have important implications for adolescents who may be considering MBS for weight reduction and overall health improvements that extend into adulthood.

One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Gastric Bypass as Redo Surgery After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding-Observation Comparative Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

This study investigates the outcome of one-stage and two-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as a revision procedure after failed adjustable gastric banding (AGB).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data of patients who underwent a one-stage RYGB (OS-RYGB) or a two-stage RYGB (TS-RYGB) revision procedure after failing AGB between 2005 and 2019 were analyzed. Outcome criteria were perioperative complications, operating time, change in weight and BMI, and remission of comorbidities at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Data from 230 patients after OS-RYGB and 197 after TS-RYGB were analyzed. The total perioperative complication rates were not significantly different between the two groups (overall p > 5%). In the category of other complications, there was a significant difference between the two groups, with a lower rate in TS-RYGB than in OS-RYGB (p = 0.020). Wound infections occurred more frequently after TS-RYGB than after OS-RYGB (p = 0.015). Mean operating time differed significantly between the two groups (OS-RYGB (149.9 min) and TS-RYGB 191 min; p < 0.001). The change in hypertension was significantly higher in OS-RYGB (37.9 vs. 21.1%; p = 0.007). Other comorbidities showed no significant change within 1 year after surgery. Regarding the change in BMI, %TWL, and %EWL, there were no significant benefits for either group (p = 0.574, 0.762, and 0.378, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Removing a failed AGB using the OS- or TS-RYGB is safe and feasible. The decision between OS- and TS-RYGB is still individual and depends on the patient's general condition, the desired goal of the procedure, and the personal competence of the surgeon. Further studies are needed to clarify long-term outcome and effect of both procedures.

Feasibility and Short-Term Outcomes of One-Step and Two-Step Sleeve Gastrectomy as Revision Procedures for Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding Compared With Those After Primary Sleeve Gastrectomy

Background: The practice of bariatric surgery was studied using the German Bariatric Surgery Registry (GBSR). The focus of the study was to evaluate whether revision surgery One-Step (OS) or Two-Step (TS) sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has a large benefit in terms of perioperative risk in patients after failed Adjustable Gastric Banding (AGB). Methods: The data collection includes patients who underwent One-Step SG (OS-SG) or Two-Step SG (TS-SG) as revision surgery after AGB and primary SG (P-SG) between 2005 and 2019. Outcome criteria were perioperative complications, comorbidities, 30-day mortality, and operating time. Results: The study analyzed data from 27,346 patients after P-SG, 320 after OS-SG, and 168 after TS-SG. Regarding the intraoperative complication, there was a significant difference in favor of P-SG and TS-SG compared to OS-SG (p < 0.001). The incidence of pulmonary complications was significantly higher in the OS-SG (p < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in occurrence of staple line stenosis in favor of TS-SG (p = 0.005) and the occurrence of sepsis (p = 0.008). The mean operating time was statistically longer in the TS-SG group than in the OS-SG group (p < 0.001). The 30-day mortality was not significantly different between the three groups (p = 0.727). Conclusion: In general, our study shows that converting a gastric band to a SG is safe and feasible. However, lower complications were obtained with TS-SG compared to OS-SG. Despite acceptable complication and mortality rates of both procedures, we cannot recommend any surgical method as a standard procedure. Proper patient selection is crucial to avoid possible adverse effects.

The Panoramic View of Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Introduction: Obesity remains a major public chronic disease, and the multifactorial components of its relapse in many patients remain inevitable. Methods: This article provides a panoramic view of the most commonly performed revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). RBS is a complex procedure; thus, primary procedures should be well chosen and performed to avoid the increasing number of RBS cases. Results: Bariatric surgery is the only successful long-term treatment for obesity. However, a proportion of primary bariatric surgeries has failed during the follow-up period. In recent decades, the solution for these complications is by performing RBS. It is mandatory to understand obesity as a chronic disease to appropriately treat patients. Treatment strategies are needed to determine the indications for revision. RBS requires a meticulous evaluation to facilitate good long-term results. Conclusions: Treatment strategies will be a fundamental pillar to wisely determine the indications for revision and identify the factors influencing failure by prudently and rationally evaluating the revisional procedure that the patient will benefit from and acquiring a high level of surgical skills.

How Far Can Our Expectations Go on Revisional Bariatric Surgery After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding?

PURPOSE

Bariatric surgery has proven its effectiveness in the treatment of obesity and related comorbidities. However, several procedures may be required to treat this chronic disease and/or complications after bariatric surgery. The most frequent revisional surgeries performed after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (AGB) have been Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The aim of this study is to compare medium-term outcomes of primary and revisional bariatric procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Single institution, matched case-control study of obese patients submitted to bariatric surgery, divided into four groups of 50 patients: (A) primary RYGB; (B) primary SG; (C) revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB) after failed laparoscopic AGB; (D) revisional sleeve gastrectomy (rSG) after failed laparoscopic AGB. Demographic variables, surgical procedures characteristics and complications, weight loss outcomes and resolution of comorbidities were compared.

RESULTS

Mortality and morbidity were comparable between primary and revisional procedures. Weight loss outcomes were inferior in patients submitted to rRYGB when compared to those submitted to RYGB, with no significant differences found when comparing the other groups. Regarding comorbidities' outcomes, only patients submitted to rSG had lower odds of comorbidities' improvement. Patients submitted to rRYGB had an odd 7 times higher of comorbidities' improvement than those submitted to rSG, independent of weight loss outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Revisional surgeries are safe procedures with adequate weight loss outcomes in this difficult set of patients. The choice of revisional procedure may not influence weight loss outcomes, but rRYGB seems to be a better option regarding comorbidities' resolution.

Safety of Single Stage Revision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Compared to Laparoscopic Roux-Y Gastric Bypass after Failed Gastric Banding

Background

Reoperation, after failed gastric banding, is a controversial topic. A common approach is band removal with conversion to laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in a single-step procedure.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the safety of revisional surgery to LSG compared to LRYGB after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) based on MBSAQIP Participant User File from 2015 to 2018.

Methods

Patients who underwent a one-stage conversion of LAGB to LSG (Conv-LSG) or LRYGB (Conv-LRYGB) were identified in the MBSAQIP PUF from 2015 to 2017. Conv-LRYGB cases were matched (1:1) with Conv-LSG patients using propensity scoring to control for potential confounding. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

Results

A total of 9974 patients (4987 matched pairs) were included in the study. Conv-LRYGB, as compared with conv-SG, was associated with a similar risk of mortality (0.02% vs. 0.06%; relative risk [RR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 3.20, p = 0.32). Conversion to LRYGB increased the risk for readmission (6.16% vs. 3.77%; RR, 1.63; 95%CI, 1.37 to 1.94, p < 0.01); reoperation (2.15% vs. 1.36%; RR, 1.57; 95%CI, 1.17 to 2.12, p = <0.01); leak (1.76% vs. 1.02%; RR, 1.57; 95%CI, 1.72 to 2.42, p < 0.01); and bleeding (1.66% vs. 1.00%; RR, 1.66; 95%CI, 1.7 to 2.34, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The study shows that single-stage LRYGB and LSG as revisional surgery after gastric banding, are safe in the 30-day observation with an acceptable complication rate and low mortality. However, conversion to LRYGB increased the risk of perioperative complications.

Comparison of sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after failure of gastric banding: a two-center study with a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Few studies on series comparing sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after failure of gastric banding (GB) are available. The objective of this study was to compare the short- and medium-term outcomes of SG and RYGB after GB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2017, patients undergoing SG (n = 186) or RYGB (n = 107) for failure of primary GB were included in this two-center study. Propensity-score matching was performed based on preoperative factors with a 2:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was the weight loss at 2 years between the SG and RYGB groups. Secondary endpoints were overall mortality and morbidity, reoperation, correction of comorbidities and the rate of adverse events at 2 years follow-up.

RESULTS

In our propensity score matching analysis, operative time was significantly less in the SG group (95 min vs. 179 min; p < 0.001). Post-operative complications were lower in the SG group (9.5% vs. 35.4%; p = 0.003). At 2 years follow-up, the mean EWL was similar as same as comorbidities. There was a significant difference in favor of SG concerning the rate of adverse events at 2 years follow-up (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Revision of GB by SG or RYGB is feasible, with a higher rate of early post-operative complications for RYGB. Weight loss at 2 years follow-up is similar; however, RYGB appears to result in a higher rate of adverse events than SG.

Comparative analysis of weight loss and resolution of comorbidities between laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on 18 studies

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy are the most common procedures performed in bariatric surgery and both have been demonstrated to have significant effectiveness in treating morbid obesity. However, comparative analysis of their effectiveness has not been well studied. This comparative analysis was conducted to determine whether Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy have the same mid- and long-term outcomes in weight loss, resolution of obesity comorbidities and adverse events (AEs) of treatment.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases from the establishment of the database to January 1, 2020 for both randomized control trials and non-randomised interventional studies that studied Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with respect to weight loss outcomes, resolution of obesity comorbidities and AEs of treatment. Standardised mean differences, risk ratios and odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to compare the outcomes of the groups. Two reviewers assessed the quality of the trials and extracted the data independently. All statistical analyses were performed using the standard statistical procedures in Review Manager 5.2.

RESULTS

We included 20 studies (N = 2917 participants) in this meta-analysis. Our results showed no significant difference in excess weight loss between Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, with pooled Standardised mean differences of -0.16 (95% confidence interval: -0.52 to 0.19; P = 0.36) based on randomized control trials and 0.07 (95% confidence interval: -0.10 to 0.24; P = 0.41) based on non-randomised interventional studies. Further, the pooled results showed no significant differences in midterm and long-term weight loss outcomes between the comparative groups. Similarly, no significant difference was found in type 2 diabetes mellitus resolution. The pooled results indicated that patients receiving laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy experienced fewer postoperative complication and reoperation rates, with pooled risk ratios of 1.66 (95% confidence interval: 1.33 to 2.07; P < 0.00001) and 1.73 (95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 2.62; P = 0.01), respectively. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was superior to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in managing dyslipidemia, hypertension and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis indicated that both Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy had the same effectiveness in resulting in excess weight loss and type 2 diabetes mellitus resolution. However, patients who received laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy experienced fewer postoperative complication and reoperation rates than those who received Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was superior in the management of dyslipidemia, hypertension and gastroesophageal reflux disease.