Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Update on comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis of weight loss, comorbidities, and quality of life at 5 years

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) and Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) are the two most commonly performed bariatric surgeries for the treatment of obesity. This meta-analysis was performed with the aim of summarizing the available evidence on weight loss, remission of comorbidities, and quality of life in LRYGB and LSG, complementing the current literature.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from January 2012 to June 2023 for randomized controlled trials and non-randomized interventional studies. We finally selected 18 eligible studies.

RESULTS

LRYGB resulted in greater weight loss compared with LSG at 5 years [WMD= -7.65 kg/m², 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.54 to -3.76, P = 0.0001], but there exists high heterogeneity with I²=84%. Resolution rate of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) (OR = 0.60, 95%Cl 0.41-0.87, p = 0.007) and dyslipidemia (OR = 0.44, 95%Cl 0.23-0.84, p = 0.01) was higher in the LRYGB group than that in the LSG group at 5 years. There was no difference between LRYGB and LSG for remission of hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea. No differences were observed in the QoL after LRYGB or LSG. Morbidity was lower in the LSG group (WMD = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.13, -0.02, P = 0.01) than in the LRYGB group. No statistically significant difference was found in mortality between the two procedures.

CONCLUSION

At 5 years after surgery, LRYGB resulted in greater weight loss and achieved better remission rate of T2D and dyslipidemia than LSG. However, LSG has a lower morbidity rate than that of LRYGB.

Randomized controlled trials comparing gastric bypass, gastric band, and sleeve gastrectomy: A systematic review examining validity and applicability to wider clinical practice

Consideration of how applicable the results of surgical trials are to clinical practice is important to inform decision-making. Randomized controlled trials comparing at least two surgical interventions (of gastric bypass, gastric band, and sleeve gastrectomy) for severe and complex obesity were examined using the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 tool, to consider how applicable the trial results are to clinical practice, and the Risk of Bias 2 tool, to examine validity. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies published between November 2013 and June 2021, and 15 were identified. Using the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 tool, three were classified as pragmatic, with good applicability to clinical practice. Ten had more explanatory domains but did include some pragmatic characteristics, and two were predominantly explanatory. This was due to some trial design features that would not be considered applicable to the wider clinical setting, including being single-centered, having prescribed intervention delivery methods, and intensive follow-up regimens. Only two trials had low risk of bias, of which one was considered pragmatic. Three had high risk of bias. Overall, few trials in bariatric surgery are pragmatic with low risk of bias. Well-designed pragmatic trials are needed to inform practice and reduce research waste.

Safety and Efficacy of LSG Versus LRYGB on Patients with Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from RCTs

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are the two most frequently performed techniques in treating obesity and its related comorbidities. We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of LSG with LRYGB in terms of short- and mid-term outcomes of weight loss, obesity-related comorbidities, and post-operative complications via a meta-analysis of RCTs.

METHODS

Clinical comparative RCTs on LSG and LRYGB were searched through PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases from inception to August 2022. Pooled outcomes from the selected studies were discussed by the random-effect meta-analysis method. Quality assessment and risk of bias for selected RCTs were implemented, and all the statistical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty studies, including 1270 patients, were enrolled. Meta-analysis results indicated the great superior efficacy of LRYGB to LSG in BMI loss at 6 (MD -1.35 kg/m2, 95% CI: -2.07 to -0.62, p = 0.0003), 12 months (MD -1.09 kg/m2, 95% CI: -1.86 to -0.33, p = 0.005), and 36 months (MD -1.47 kg/m2, 95% CI: -2.77 to -0.16, p = 0.03) as well as %EWL gaining at 36 months. Significantly higher remission rates of T2DM and dyslipidemia were achieved by LRYGB at 12 months. Besides, better improvements for T2DM-related and lipid biochemical parameters were found favoring LRYGB. However, LSG resulted in a lower post-operative complication rate and shorter operating time.

CONCLUSIONS

Present meta-analysis results suggested that LRYGB was superior to LSG concerning short- and mid-term weight loss, short-term T2DM remission efficacy, and related biochemical parameters. LSG is favored for obviously fewer complications and shorter operating time.

The feasibility and outcomes of metabolic and bariatric surgery prior to neoplastic therapy

BACKGROUND

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is a potent intervention for addressing obesity-related medical conditions and achieving sustainable weight loss. Beyond its conventional role, MBS has demonstrated potential to serve as a transitional step for patients requiring various interventions. However, the implications of MBS in the context of neoplasia remain understudied.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the feasibility of MBS as a possible attempt to reduce surgical and treatment risks in patients with benign tumors or low-grade cancers.

SETTING

Multicenter review from twelve tertiary referral centers spanning 8 countries.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients with a diagnosis of primary neoplasia, deemed inoperable or high-risk due to obesity, and receiving primary MBS prior to neoplastic therapy. Data encompassed baseline characteristics, neoplasia characteristics, MBS outcomes, and neoplastic therapy outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients (median age 52 years, 75.7% female, median BMI of 49.1 kg/m2) were included. There were 9 distinct organs of origin of primary neoplasia, with the endometrium (43.2%) being the most common, followed by the pancreas, colon, kidney and breast. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) was the most commonly performed MBS procedure (78.4%), with no MBS-related complications or mortalities reported over an average of 4.3 ± 3.9 years. Thirty-one patients (83.8%) eventually underwent neoplastic surgery, with a mean BMI decrease from 49.9 kg/m2 to 39.7 kg/m2 at surgery over an average of 5.8 ± 4.8 months. There were 2 (6.7%) documented mortalities associated with neoplastic surgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the potential feasibility of employing MBS prior to neoplastic therapy in patients with low-grade, less aggressive neoplasms in the context of obesity. This underscores the importance of providing a personalized, case-to-case multidisciplinary approach in the management of these patients.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients with obesity results in comparable outcomes

BACKGROUND

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and fundoplication are effective treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease, though the optimal procedure of choice in obesity is unknown. We hypothesize that Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is non-inferior to fundoplication for symptomatic control of gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients with obesity.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained quality database. Patients with a body mass index ≥of 35 who presented for gastroesophageal reflux disease and subsequently underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or fundoplication were included. Perioperative outcomes and pH testing data were reviewed. Patient-reported outcomes included Reflux Symptom Index, Dysphagia, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health Related Quality of Life, and Short Form-36 scores. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients underwent fundoplication (n = 72, 75.8%) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 23, 24.2%) during the study period. All patients saw an improvement in gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms and overall quality of life. There were no significant differences in postoperative Reflux Symptom Index, Dysphagia, or Short-Form-36 scores. Significant differences in gastroesophageal reflux disease-Health Related Quality of Life scores were seen at preoperative, 1, 2, and 5 years postoperative (P < .05), with better symptom control in the fundoplication group. No significant difference was noted in postoperative DeMeester scores or percent time pH <4. Weight loss was significantly higher in the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass group at all postoperative time points up to 5 years (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and fundoplication both decrease gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. Subjective data shows that patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass may complain of worse symptoms compared to patients undergoing fundoplication. Objective data notes no significant difference in postoperative pH testing. Despite previous data, offering fundoplication or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to patients with a body mass index of ≥35 kg/m2 is appropriate. The choice of surgical approach should be more directed to patient needs and desired goals at the time of the initial clinic visit.

LAPAROSCOPIC SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC ROUX-EN-Y GASTRIC BYPASS FOR WEIGHT LOSS IN OBESE PATIENTS: WHICH IS MORE EFFECTIVE? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is the most effective option to reduce weight in morbid obesity patients. The techniques most employed are the restrictive surgery laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), surgical procedures of intestinal malabsorption, and both types (restrictive and intestinal malabsorption) such as the Roux-en-Y laparoscopic gastric bypass (RYLGB).

AIMS

To determine if LSG is more effective than RYLGB for weight loss.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out, including five clinical trials and sixteen cohorts comparing LSG versus RYLGB in weight loss and secondary outcomes: resolution of comorbidities, postoperative complications, operative time, hospital stay, and improvement in quality of life.

RESULTS

Excess weight loss was 10.2% (mean difference [MD] 10.2; 95%CI -10.14; -9.90) higher in patients undergoing LSG than in patients submitted to RYLGB. Diabetes mellitus type 2 was resolved in 17% (relative risk [RR] 0.83; 95%CI 0.77-0.90) of cases, more significantly after LSG, arterial hypertension in 23% (RR 0.77; 95%CI 0.69-0.84), and dyslipidemia in 17% (RR 0.83; 95%CI 0.77-0.90). Postoperative complications were 73% higher in patients undergoing RYLGB (MD 0.73; 95%CI 0.63-0.83). The operative time was 35.76 minutes shorter in the LSG (MD -35.76; 95%CI -37.28; -34.24). Finally, the quality of life improved more in patients operated by LSG (MD 0.37; 95%CI -0.48; -0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated that LSG could be more effective than RYLGB in reducing the percentage of excess weight, comorbidities, postoperative complications, operative time, hospital stay, and in improving quality of life.

Outcomes of same-day discharge sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Length of stay after bariatric surgery has progressively shortened. Same-day discharge (SDD) has been reported for the 2 most common bariatric procedures, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and success of SDD following SG and RYGB. Systematic literature search on SDD after bariatric surgery was conducted in Medline, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, and Embase. SDD was defined as discharging the patient during the day of the bariatric operation, without an overnight stay. The primary outcomes of interest were successful SDD, readmission, and morbidity rates. The secondary endpoints included reoperation and mortality rates. A proportion meta-analysis was performed to assess the outcomes of interest. A total of 14 studies with 33,403 patients who underwent SDD SG (32,165) or RYGB (1238) were included in the qualitative synthesis. Seven studies with 5000 patients who underwent SDD SG were included in the quantitative analysis, and pooled proportions (PPs) were calculated for the outcomes of interest. The SDD success rate was 63%-100% (PP: 99%) after SG and 88%-98.1% after RYGB. The readmission rate ranged from .6% to 20.8% (PP: 4%) after SDD SG and 2.4%-4% after SDD RYGB. Overall morbidity, reoperation, and mortality were 1.1%-10% (PP:4%), .3%-2.1% (PP: 1%), and 0%-.1% (PP: 0%), respectively, for SDD SG, and 2.5%-4%,1.9%-2.5%, and 0%-.9%, respectively, for SDD RYGB. SDD after SG seems feasible and safe. The outcomes of SDDRYGB seem promising, but the evidenceis stilllimitedto draw definitive conclusions. Selection criteria and perioperative protocolsmust be standardized to adequately introduce this practice.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy effects on obesity comorbidities: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are the most commonly used bariatric procedures. There is an increasing awareness about a comorbidity-based indication for bariatric surgery regardless of weight (metabolic surgery). The best operation to mitigate obesity-associated comorbidities is a matter of controversy. This review is aimed at comparing LRYGB and LSG for the treatment of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemias, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and gastroesophageal reflux (GERD). We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for articles comparing these two commonly used bariatric approaches. We identified 2,457 studies, 1,468 of which stood after the removal of duplications; from them, 81 full texts were screened and only 16 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. LRYGB was equal weight to LSG for diabetes (P-value = 0.10, odd ratio, 1.24, 95% CI, 0.96-1.61, I ² for heterogeneity = 30%, P-value for heterogeneity, 0.14), and OSA (P-value = 0.38, odd ratio, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.47-1.33, I ² for heterogeneity = 0.0%, P-value for heterogeneity, 0.98). However, LRYGB was superior to LSG regarding hypertension (P-value = 0.009, odd ratio, 1.55, 95% CI, 1.20-2.0, I ² for heterogeneity = 0.0%, P-value for heterogeneity, 0.59), dyslipidemia (odd ratio, 2.18, 95% CI, 1.15-4.16, P-value for overall effect, 0.02), and GERD (P-value = 0.003, odd ratio, 3.16, 95% CI, 1.48-6.76). LRYGB was superior to LSG for gastroesophageal reflux, hypertension, and dyslipidemia remission. While the two procedures were equal regarding diabetes and obstructive sleep, further reviews comparing LSG, and one anastomosis gastric bypass are recommended.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, or one-anastomosis gastric bypass? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine which bariatric procedure allows patients to obtain the best weight-loss outcomes and a remission of type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Databases were searched for randomized-controlled trials comparing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). The mean difference (MD) or the relative risk was determined.

RESULTS

Twenty-five randomized-controlled trials were analyzed. Excess weight loss (EWL, percentage) was greater for RYGB patients at 3 years (MD: 11.93, p < 0.00001) and 5 years (MD: 13.11, p = 0.0004). Higher excess BMI loss (percentage) was found in RYGB at 1 year (MD: 11.66, p = 0.01). Total weight loss (percentage) was greater for RYGB patients after 3 months (MD: 2.41, p = 0.02), 6 months (MD: 3.83, p < 0.00001), 1 year (MD: 6.35, p < 0.00001), and 5 years (MD: 3.90, p = 0.005). No difference in terms of remission of type 2 diabetes was seen between RYGB and SG. EWL was significantly more important after OAGB than after RYGB after 1 year (MD: -10.82, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

RYGB is more efficient than SG in the midterm. OAGB offers greater EWL than RYGB after 1 year, but further evidence is needed to confirm this result.

Outcomes of the One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass with Various Biliopancreatic Limb Lengths: a Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study

Introduction

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is an effective and safe treatment for morbidly obese patients. Longer biliopancreatic (BP) limb length is suggested to result in better weight loss outcomes, but to date, no data are available for the OAGB to substantiate this. We hypothesized that applying a longer BP-limb length in the higher BMI classes would result in more weight reduction so that the attained BMI would be comparable to patients with a lower BMI, thereby compensating for differences in baseline BMI.

Method

A retrospective cohort study in patients who underwent a primary OAGB at a teaching hospital in the Netherlands between January 2015 and December 2016. BP-limb length was tailored based on preoperative BMI. Patients were divided into three different groups depending on the length of the BP-limb: 150, 180, and 200 cm. Weight loss outcomes after 1 and 3 years and resolution of comorbidities were compared between these groups.

Results

Of the 632 included patients, a BP-limb length of 150 cm was used in 172 (27.2%), 180 cm in 388 (61.4%), and 200 cm in 72 (11.4%) patients. Despite more BMI loss, %EWL was lower and attained BMI remained higher in the groups with longer BP-limb lengths. After adjustment for the confounder preoperative BMI, longer BP-limb lengths were not associated with higher BMI loss. There was no difference in remission rates of comorbidities.

Conclusion

Attained BMI remained higher in spite of tailoring BP-limb length according to baseline BMI with no differences in remission rates of comorbidities.

Graphical Abstract

What Is Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery Expressed in Percentage Total Weight Loss (%TWL)? A Systematic Review

Percentage total weight loss (%TWL) might be better than percentage excess weight loss to express weight loss in bariatric surgery. In this systematic review, performed according to the PRISMA statement, results of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are assessed in %TWL. A total of 13,426 studies were screened and 49 included, reporting data of 24,760 patients. The results show that, despite limiting data, LRYGB is favorable over LSG in terms of weight loss in short-term follow-up. Although recent guidelines recommend to use %TWL when reporting outcome in bariatric surgery, this study shows that there is still insufficient quality data in %TWL, especially on LSG. The use of %TWL as the primary outcome measure in bariatric surgery should be encouraged.

Splenic Abscess Complicating Bariatric Surgery : A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Bariatric surgery has become one of the most rapidly growing subspecialty performed globally, and it has been well reported to be associated with low morbidity and mortality rates. Splenic abscess is a rare but serious complication of bariatric surgery that has not been previously systematically reviewed in the literature.

METHODS

The authors have performed a systematic review of the evidence that has looked into the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and the management options of splenic abscess complicating bariatric surgery.

RESULTS

This systematic review has been unsurprisingly based on level-IV evidence due to the rarity of the explored condition. The final analysis included 27 relevant reported cases. The mean age was 38 years and the mean of the time interval between the initial operation and developing splenic abscess was 72 days, with the male to female ratio being 1:1.6. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was the initial operation in 85.2% of the patients. Nearly half of the patients did not have an objective evidence of local or systemic sepsis that could explain the abscess formation. Nonsurgical management was attempted in 14 patients, with 34% success rate only. Splenectomy was needed in 41.7% of the patients. No mortality was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Splenic abscess is a rare and rather late but serious complication of bariatric surgery that could result in splenectomy in a relatively young group of patients. It is more commonly reported following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Early diagnosis with intervention in a timely manner is crucial to avoid life threatening complications.

Intraoperative decision making in bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgeons may encounter unexpected anatomical or pathological findings during various bariatric surgical procedures for which they must make prompt and critical decisions that had not been planned prior to the operation. In this practice review, we present our experiences with unexpected challenges and on-table decision making in bariatric surgery to share our knowledge with colleagues who may encounter the same challenges during bariatric surgery. This paper's content is of applied learning and practical value focusing on challenging intraoperative decision making; however, it does not discuss the details of the various techniques used during surgery.

METHODS

This work is a single-center retrospective review of operations carried out on patients who had unexpected intraoperative findings during bariatric surgery despite the implementation of detailed preoperative evaluations that would have otherwise suggested standard procedures. These findings resulted in abandoned surgery or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy instead of the intended Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

RESULTS

A total of 449 patients had received various bariatric interventions in our unit between 2012 and 2016. Eleven patients, representing approximately 2.4% of the total number of patients surveyed had met the inclusion criteria and were added to the final list for analysis. The mean age of the included patients was 40.82 years (range: 30-51 years), and seven of the patients, representing approximately 63.6% of the included cases, were female. The mean body mass index of the 11 cases was 40.8 (range: 38-48). Only two cases (18.9%) had had their surgery abandoned; the rest (81.1%) had received laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy instead of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. None of the 11 patients had perioperative morbidity or mortality.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative decision making for unexpected findings in bariatric surgery is challenging. In these circumstances, surgeons must make prompt and critical decisions, including abandoning the operation. The available literature on this subject is unsurprisingly limited because of the rarity of such findings.

Two-year outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy versus gastric bypass: first report based on Tehran obesity treatment study (TOTS)

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is an effective treatment for obesity and its associated comorbidities. This is the first comprehensive report of a prospective cohort study, comparing sleeve gastrectomy (SG) with gastric bypass (GB) regarding their effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

The prospectively collected data of patients, who presented to a specialized bariatric center and underwent a primary bariatric procedure, were compared in terms of weight loss, remission of obesity-associated comorbidities, complication rate, and quality of life improvement at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups.

RESULTS

Of 3287 patients (78.6% female) analyzed, 67% (n = 2202) and 33% (n = 1085) underwent SG and GB, respectively. Effective outcomes were reported in both groups regarding the body composition indices. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remission rate at the end of follow-up was 53.3% and 63.8% in the SG and GB groups, respectively. Following the propensity score-adjusted analysis, the T2DM remission rate was not significantly different between the groups. Conversely, the remission rate of hypertension in the 24-month follow-up (39.1% vs. 54.7%) and the remission rate of dyslipidemia in all follow-ups were lower in the SG group, compared to the GB group. Moreover, both procedures caused substantial improvements in various domains of quality of life. The surgery duration, early complication rate, and nutritional deficiencies were lower in the SG group, compared to the GB group.

CONCLUSION

Both surgical procedures were effective in the control of obesity and remission of its comorbidities. However, since SG was associated with a lower rate of complications, it seems that SG should be considered as a suitable procedure for obese patients, especially those with a healthier metabolic profile.

Five-Year Weight Loss Outcomes in Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) Versus Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) has overtaken the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) as the most frequently performed bariatric surgical procedure. To date little has been reported on the long-term outcomes of the LVSG procedure comparative to the traditionally favoured LRYGB. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to review the 5-year outcomes of comparing LVSG and LRYGB. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare 5-year weight loss outcomes of randomized controlled trials comparing LVSG to LRYGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane) were undertaken for randomized controlled trials describing weight loss outcomes in adults at 5 years postoperatively. Where sufficient data was available to undertake meta-analysis, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman estimation method for random effects model was utilized. The review was registered with PROSPERO and reported following in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

RESULTS

Five studies met the inclusion criteria totaling 1028 patients (LVSG=520, LRYGB=508). Moderate but comparable levels of bias were observed within studies. Statistically significant body mass index loss ranged from -11.37 kg/m (range: -6.3 to -15.7 kg/m) in the LVSG group and -12.6 kg/m (range: -9.5 to -15.4 kg/m) for LRYGB at 5 years (P<0.001). Systematic review suggested that LRYGB produced a greater weight loss expressed as percent excess weight and percent excess body mass index loss than LVSG: this was not corroborated in the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Five year weight loss outcomes suggest both LRYGB and LVSG are effective in achieving significant weight loss at 5 years postoperatively, however, differences in reporting parameters limit the ability to reliably compare the outcomes using statistical methods. Furthermore, results may be impacted by large dropout rates and per protocol analysis of the 2 largest included studies. Further long-term studies are required to contradict or validate the results of this meta-analysis.