↓ Skip to main content

Postoperative Early Major and Minor Complications in Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) Versus Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) Procedures: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic…

Overview of attention for article published in Obesity Surgery, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Postoperative Early Major and Minor Complications in Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) Versus Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) Procedures: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Published in
Obesity Surgery, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11695-016-2101-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Osland, Rossita Mohamad Yunus, Shahjahan Khan, Tareq Alodat, Breda Memon, Muhammed Ashraf Memon

Abstract

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) have been proposed as cost-effective strategies to manage obesity-related chronic disease. The aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review was to compare the "early postoperative complication rate i.e. within 30-days" reported from randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing these two procedures. RCTs comparing the early complication rates following LVSG and LRYGB between 2000 and 2015 were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The outcome variables analyzed included 30-day mortality, major and minor complications and interventions required for their management, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, operating time, and conversions from laparoscopic to open procedures. Six RCTs involving a total of 695 patients (LVSG n = 347, LRYGB n = 348) reported on early major complications. A statistically significant reduction in relative odds of early major complications favoring the LVSG procedure was noted (p = 0.05). Five RCTs representing 633 patients (LVSG n = 317, LRYGB n = 316) reported early minor complications. A non-statically significant reduction in relative odds of 29 % favoring the LVSG procedure was observed for early minor complications (p = 0.4). However, other outcomes directly related to complications which included reoperation rates, readmission rate, and 30-day mortality rate showed comparable effect size for both surgical procedures. This meta-analysis and systematic review of RCTs suggests that fewer early major and minor complications are associated with LVSG compared with LRYGB procedure. However, this does not translate into higher readmission rate, reoperation rate, or 30-day mortality for either procedure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 29 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 31 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 February 2016.
All research outputs
#7,575,259
of 25,126,845 outputs
Outputs from Obesity Surgery
#1,094
of 3,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,989
of 304,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obesity Surgery
#18
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,126,845 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
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 304,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.