↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Early Morbidity and Mortality Between Sleeve Gastrectomy and Gastric Bypass in High-Risk Patients for Liver Disease: Analysis of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality…

Overview of attention for article published in Obesity Surgery, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of Early Morbidity and Mortality Between Sleeve Gastrectomy and Gastric Bypass in High-Risk Patients for Liver Disease: Analysis of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program
Published in
Obesity Surgery, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11695-018-3259-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamad A. Minhem, Sali F. Sarkis, Bassem Y. Safadi, Souha A. Fares, Ramzi S. Alami

Abstract

Chronic liver disease is prevalent in obese patients presenting for bariatric surgery and is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality (M&M). There are no comparative studies on the safety of different types of bariatric operations in this subset of patients. The aim of this study is to compare the 30-day postoperative M&M between laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-Y-gastric bypass (LRYGB) in the subset of patients with a model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score ≥ 8. Data for LSG and LRYGB were extracted from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from years 2012 and 2013. MELD score was calculated using serum creatinine, bilirubin, INR, and sodium. Postoperative M&M were assessed in patients with a score ≥ 8 and compared for the type of operation. This was followed by analysis for MELD subcategories. Multiple logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. Out of 34,169, 9.8% of cases had MELD ≥ 8 and were included. Primary endpoint, 30-day M&M, was significantly lower post-LSG (9.5%) compared to LRYGB (14.7%); [AOR = 0.66(0.53, 0.83)]. Superficial wound infection, prolonged hospital stay, and unplanned readmission were more common in LRYGB. M&M post-LRYGB (30.6%) was significantly higher than LSG (15.7%) among MELD15-19 subgroup analysis. LRYGB is associated with a higher postoperative risk than LSG in patients with MELD ≥ 8. The difference in postoperative complications between procedures was magnified with higher MELD. This suggests that LSG might be a safer option in morbidly obese patients with higher MELD scores, especially above 15.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Professor 1 4%
Student > Master 1 4%
Researcher 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 18 64%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 36%
Unknown 18 64%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,483,282
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Obesity Surgery
#3,039
of 3,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,576
of 326,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obesity Surgery
#43
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.