↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of mini-gastric bypass with sleeve gastrectomy in a mainly super-obese patient group: first results

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of mini-gastric bypass with sleeve gastrectomy in a mainly super-obese patient group: first results
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00464-016-5085-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas Plamper, Philipp Lingohr, Jennifer Nadal, Karl P. Rheinwalt

Abstract

Whereas sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in its beginnings was mainly performed to treat super-obesity, it has become as popular as gastric bypass in the treatment of obesity of any class. In contrast to this, the persisting problems of early staple line leaks and poor long-term results of SG regarding weight loss and new onset of gastroesophageal reflux have become increasingly obvious. The mini-gastric bypass (MGB) with its low complication rates and possibly better long-term results may be a good alternative to SG, especially in super-obesity. In this context, two groups of mostly super-obese patients (SG and MGB) of a single bariatric center were retrospectively analyzed and compared for perioperative and early postoperative outcomes. Between August 2007 and March 2015, 169 patients underwent MGB, while 118 patients were operated by SG. Both groups were comparable for BMI at baseline (MGB = 54.1 kg/m(2) vs. SG = 54.6 kg/m(2), p = 0.657). Mean operation time (81.7 vs. 112.1 min, p < 0.0001) as well as hospital stay was lower in the MGB-group (4.5 vs. 7.2 days, p < 0.0001). Perioperative (30 days) mortality was 0 % in MGB versus 0.8 % in SG (one patient). Perioperative complication rate was also lower in the MGB-group (3.0 vs. 9.3 %, p = 0.449). %EWL was significantly better after 1 year in MGB: 66.2 % (±13.9 %) versus 57.3 % (±19.0 %) in SG (p < 0.0001), as well as BMI which was 34.9 kg/m(2) (±4.8 kg/m(2)) in MGB versus 38.5 kg/m(2) (±8.6 kg/m(2)) in SG (p = 0.001). MGB achieved superior weight loss at 1 year and had a lower 30-day complication rate in comparison with SG for super-obese patients. Thus, MGB might be superior to SG regarding the treatment of super-obesity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 12 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 50%
Unspecified 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 16 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,542,652
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#2,739
of 6,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,390
of 366,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#76
of 193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,259 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 366,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 193 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.