Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 29 (10), 3252-3263

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

Affiliations

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

Chang Wu et al. Obes Surg.

Abstract

Background: Over recent decades, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been among the most common bariatric surgeries. Nowadays, many patients require revision surgery due to insufficient weight loss and band-related complications. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are the two most common revision surgeries for failed LAGB, but the conclusions about their efficacy and safety have been inconsistent. This meta-analysis aimed to review the clinical outcomes of SG and RYGB after failed LAGB.

Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were systematically searched for articles that had studied the efficacy and safety of SG and RYGB. The most appropriate effects model was chosen based on the heterogeneity of the articles included in this meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata 14.0.

Results: Of 586 articles that were retrieved, 16 articles which examined 2141 SG and 2990 RYGB patients met the inclusion criteria. The patients in RYGB groups showed increased percent excess weight loss (%EWL) at 12 and 24 months after revision surgery but no statistically significant change was found about %EWL after 3, 6, or 36 months. In addition, RYGB was associated with a higher rate of complications, interventions, and readmission in addition to being of more operative time.

Conclusions: This review suggested that RYGB was more effective at demonstrating weight loss after 12 and 24 months, but comparisons of the long-term efficacy of RYGB with that of SG remain inconclusive. In addition, RYGB was accompanied by a greater number of post-operative complications, interventions, and readmissions. Thus, surgeons should consider the overall status of the patients and their comorbidities as crucial factors when selecting a form of revision surgery. Additional high-quality randomized controlled studies are required to further compare the efficacy and safety of these treatments with longer follow-up times.

Keywords: Failed adjustable gastric banding; Gastric bypass; Revision surgery; Sleeve gastrectomy.

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 article

References

    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719-48 - PubMed

References

    1. Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012 May-Jun;8(3):e21-6 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2015 Oct;25(10):1767-71 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2005 Nov-Dec;15(10):1501-2 - PubMed

References

    1. Surgery. 2004 Mar;135(3):326-51 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013 Nov-Dec;9(6):901-7 - PubMed

References

    1. Br J Surg. 2013 Nov;100(12):1614-8 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2019 Feb;29(2):420-425 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2015 Jul;25(7):1271-80 - PubMed

References

    1. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010 Sep;25(9):603-5 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2016 May;26(5):1069-74 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2013 Apr;23(4):427-36 - PubMed

References

    1. Br J Surg. 2014 Feb;101(3):254-60 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Endosc. 2016 Jun;30(6):2244-50 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2002 Dec;12(6):851-6 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Endosc. 2015 Sep;29(9):2533-7 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013 Sep-Oct;9(5):753-7 - PubMed

References

    1. Int J Surg. 2016 Mar;27:133-7 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012 Jul-Aug;8(4):400-7 - PubMed

References

    1. Ann Surg. 2003 Jan;237(1):1-9 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Endosc. 2012 Jul;26(7):1909-19 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014 Nov-Dec;10(6):1092-6 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Endosc. 2013 Mar;27(3):740-5 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2018 Nov;28(11):3573-3579 - PubMed

References

    1. Curr Obes Rep. 2016 Dec;5(4):435-440 - PubMed

References

    1. BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018 Nov;14(11):1659-1666 - PubMed

References

    1. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):e1-34 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2017 Sep;27(9):2279-2289 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Clin North Am. 2011 Dec;91(6):1249-64, ix - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Endosc. 2011 Jan;25(1):292-7 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015 Mar-Apr;11(2):379-84 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Endosc. 2013 Nov;27(11):4044-8 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2015 Jul;25(7):1110-8 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2017 Oct;27(10):2522-2536 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2017 May;27(5):1365-1373 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2006 Jul;16(7):829-35 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2017 Nov;27(11):2861-2867 - PubMed

References

    1. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2012 Dec;397(8):1235-41 - PubMed

References

    1. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006 Mar;13(3):413-24 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2011 Aug;21(8):1209-19 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014 Nov-Dec;10(6):1085-91 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Endosc. 2013 Nov;27(11):4277-83 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018 Oct;14(10):1531-1536 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017 Nov;13(11):1880-1884 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018 Oct;14(10):1516-1520 - PubMed

References

    1. Ann Surg. 2019 Feb;269(2):299-303 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2017 Jan;27(1):245-253 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2017 Jun;27(6):1430-1437 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2011 May;21(5):582-7 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback