Title |
Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty, Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy, and Laparoscopic Band for Weight Loss: How Do They Compare?
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, November 2017
|
DOI | 10.1007/s11605-017-3615-7 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Aleksey A Novikov, Cheguevara Afaneh, Monica Saumoy, Viviana Parra, Alpana Shukla, Gregory F Dakin, Alfons Pomp, Enad Dawod, Shawn Shah, Louis J Aronne, Reem Z Sharaiha |
Abstract |
Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a novel endobariatric procedure. Initial studies demonstrated an association of ESG with weight loss and improvement of obesity-related comorbidities. Our aim was to compare ESG to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). We included 278 obese (BMI > 30) patients who underwent ESG (n = 91), LSG (n = 120), or LAGB (n = 67) at our tertiary care academic center. Primary outcome was percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included adverse events (AE), length of stay (LOS), and readmission rate. At 12-month follow-up, LSG achieved the greatest %TBWL compared to LAGB and ESG (29.28 vs 13.30 vs 17.57%, respectively; p < 0.001). However, ESG had a significantly lower rate of morbidity when compared to LSG or LAGB (p = 0.01). The LOS was significantly less for ESG compared to LSG or LAGB (0.34 ± 0.73 vs 3.09 ± 1.47 vs 1.66 ± 3.07 days, respectively; p < 0.01). Readmission rates were not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.72). Although LSG is the most effective option for weight loss, ESG is a safe and feasible endobariatric option associated with low morbidity and short LOS in select patients. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 3 | 30% |
Greece | 1 | 10% |
Spain | 1 | 10% |
Panama | 1 | 10% |
Colombia | 1 | 10% |
Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 88 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 13 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 10% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
Other | 15 | 17% |
Unknown | 29 | 33% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 41% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
Engineering | 2 | 2% |
Other | 5 | 6% |
Unknown | 34 | 39% |