Document Detail

Comparison Between Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy and Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding for Morbid Obesity: a Meta-analysis.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23604584     Owner:  NLM     Status:  Publisher    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
Bariatric surgery is now widely accepted for treatment of morbid obesity. This study compared the effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) on excess weight loss (EWL) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). PubMed and Embase were searched for publications concerning LAGB and LSG from 2000 to 2012, with the last search on August 17, 2012. EWL and T2DM improvement over 6 and 12 months were pooled and compared by meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences were calculated with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Eleven studies involving 1,004 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LAGB, LSG achieved greater EWL. The mean percentage EWL for LAGB was 33.9 % after 6 months in six studies and 37.8 % after 12 months in four studies; for LSG, EWL was 50.6 % after 6 months and 51.8 % after 12 months in the same studies. LSG was also superior to LAGB in treating T2DM. In five studies, T2DM was improved in 42 of 68 (61.8 %) patients after LAGB and 66 of 80 (82.5 %) after LSG, representing a pooled OR of 0.34 (95 % CI 0.16-0.73) and pooled mean differences of -12.55 (95 % CI -15.66 to -9.43) and -4.97 (95 % CI -7.58 to -8.36), respectively. LSG is more effective than LAGB in morbid obesity, with higher percentage EWL and greater improvement in T2DM.
Authors:
Sen Wang; Ping Li; Xiao Fang Sun; Nian Yuan Ye; Ze Kuan Xu; Daorong Wang
Related Documents :
17417744 - Efficacy of anti-coagulant treatment with argatroban on cardioembolic stroke.
23094934 - Body mass index patterns following dysvascular lower extremity amputation.
20426644 - Cost-effectiveness analysis of protected carotid artery stent placement versus endarter...
22898314 - Immediate reconstruction of the mandible after resection for aggressive odontogenic tum...
22339054 - Robotic simple prostatectomy: multi-institutional outcomes for glands larger than 100 gm.
16809214 - Distribution of weakness in the upper and lower limbs post-stroke.
Publication Detail:
Type:  JOURNAL ARTICLE     Date:  2013-4-20
Journal Detail:
Title:  Obesity surgery     Volume:  -     ISSN:  1708-0428     ISO Abbreviation:  Obes Surg     Publication Date:  2013 Apr 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2013-4-22     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9106714     Medline TA:  Obes Surg     Country:  -    
Other Details:
Languages:  ENG     Pagination:  -     Citation Subset:  -    
Affiliation:
College of Basic Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, People's Republic of China.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Obes Surg
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Obes Surg
ISSN: 0960-8923
ISSN: 1708-0428
Publisher: Springer-Verlag, New York
Article Information
Download PDF
© The Author(s) 2013
OpenAccess:
Electronic publication date: Day: 20 Month: 4 Year: 2013
pmc-release publication date: Day: 20 Month: 4 Year: 2013
Print publication date: Month: 7 Year: 2013
Volume: 23 Issue: 7
First Page: 980 Last Page: 986
PubMed Id: 23604584
ID: 3671102
Publisher Id: 893
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-013-0893-3

Comparison Between Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy and Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding for Morbid Obesity: a Meta-analysis
Sen WangAff1
Ping LiAff2
Xiao Fang SunAff3
Nian Yuan YeAff2
Ze Kuan XuAff4
Daorong WangAff2 Address: +86-13905252590 daorong666@sina.com
College of Basic Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166 People’s Republic of China
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Subei People’s Hospital of Jiangsu Province (the First Affiliated Hospital of Yang Zhou University), Yangzhou, 225001 People’s Republic of China
Department of Endocrinology, Subei People’s Hospital of Jiangsu Province (the First Affiliated Hospital of Yang Zhou University), Yangzhou, 225001 People’s Republic of China
College of Clinical Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, (the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University), Nanjing, 211166 People’s Republic of China

Introduction

Morbid obesity is increasing worldwide. Its prevalence is higher in developed countries such as the USA and Western European nations than in developing countries [1], but it is also increasing in Asia and other regions due to lack of exercise, lifestyle changes, and greater stress. In China, morbid obesity is strongly associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), which has become a serious problem in modern Chinese society [2]. Over 90 million patients suffer from diabetes in China, 90 % of whom have T2DM [4]. Morbid obesity is also linked with hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and other conditions that cause distress to patients and reduce their quality of life. Obesity also increases the risk of heart attack and death.

People who are slightly overweight may find medical treatments to lose weight effective. However, pharmacologic and behavioral treatments for morbid obesity usually do not work in the long term, with patients regaining the weight they lost. Similarly, common medical treatments cannot always resolve diabetes mellitus and hypertension. According to a National Institutes of Health consensus statement in 1991, bariatric surgery is the only way to guarantee substantial weight loss and maintain weight at a reasonable level [3]. Bariatric surgery can also improve or even resolve obesity-related comorbidities, especially T2DM.

Three types of bariatric surgery are performed widely and proven effective: laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). LAGB is a simple and safe procedure that restricts food intake using an adjustable band, which is placed around the upper stomach to create a gastric pouch that is distended during meals and connected to a reservoir under the skin to change its diameter [4]. LSG is a comparatively new technique that is safe and effective especially in super-obese patients. It involves resection of two thirds of the stomach, including the fundus, while the remaining part from the gastroesophageal junction to the pylorus along the great curvature is used to form a “sleeve”. This procedure decreases the volume of the stomach to about 100 ml, which is easier to fill and thus leads to less food intake [5]. Although comparatively new, LSG is reported to be superior to LAGB in its effects on morbid obesity. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the outcomes of LAGB and LSG in terms of excess weight loss (EWL) and improvement of T2DM.


Materials and Methods
Search Strategies

Two databases (PubMed and Embase) were searched for all relevant literature, including references in articles, published between 2000 and 2012. The medical subject headings and keywords searched for individually and in combination were as follows: “laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding”, “laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy”, “type 2 diabetes mellitus”, “bariatric surgery”, and “morbid obesity”. The last search was conducted on August 17, 2012.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies including randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies that compared LAGB with LSG, (2) studies that provided information on at least one of the outcome measures, and (3) studies published in English. When a study reporting the same patient cohort was included in several publications, only the most recent or complete study was selected. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) case reports, (2) articles that were not full text or non-comparative studies, and (3) open operations, not by laparoscopic surgery.

Data Extraction

All included studies were assessed for the quality of their methodology and relevance to the objective of our meta-analysis. Conduct and reporting were in accordance with the QUOROM statement. Data on EWL and improvement of T2DM from each trial were extracted and compared independently by the two investigators.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager software version 5.0.0 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and pooled mean differences with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the outcomes of the studies; statistical heterogeneity was tested by the chi-square test. According to forest plots, heterogeneity was limited; thus, we used the Mantel–Haenszel fixed effect model. The significance of the pooled ORs was determined by Z-test, and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.


Results
Study Characteristics

There were 11 studies in this meta-analysis [1, 3, 513] (Tables 1 and 2). All were published in or after 2005 and most were published during the last 3 years. The meta-analysis included 1,004 patients from these studies, of whom 616 underwent LAGB and 388 underwent LSG. Some other studies also reported the use of LSG or LAGB for morbid obesity or comparisons between the two [1425] but were excluded because they did not provide the information we needed for analysis or their data did not meet our criteria.

Meta-analysis Results

According to our meta-analysis, LSG had a greater effect than LAGB on EWL at 6 and 12 months. For LAGB, the mean percentage EWL was 33.9 % after 6 months from six studies and 37.8 % after 12 months from four studies; for LSG, EWL was 50.6 % after 6 months and 51.8 % after 12 months from the same studies. After 6 and 12 months, the mean percentage EWL was higher for LSG than for LAGB by 33.0 and 27.0 %, respectively, indicating that, at these time points, LSG had a greater effect on weight loss than LAGB. LSG was also superior to LAGB in treating T2DM. According to five studies, 42 of 68 (61.8 %) T2DM patients experienced improvement of their diabetes after LAGB, whereas 66 of 80 (82.5 %) T2DM patients improved after LSG, an increase of 20.7 %. It can be concluded that LSG was a more effective procedure than LAGB, with a pooled OR of 0.34 (95 % CI 0.16–0.73; Fig. 1) and pooled mean differences of −12.55 (95 % CI −15.66 to −9.43; Fig. 2) and −4.97 (95 % CI −7.58 to −8.36; Fig. 3), respectively.

Publication Bias

Funnel plots were created to access the publication bias of the literature. The shapes of the plots did not reveal any evidence of obvious asymmetry (Figs. 4, 5, and 6).


Discussion

Although LAGB can significantly reduce weight, LSG had a greater effect on morbid obesity in terms of EWL and improvement of T2DM. Both LAGB and LSG are restrictive procedures that achieve EWL by decreasing the volume of the stomach to reduce food intake to comparatively low levels. It is widely accepted that the effects of these procedures are associated with levels of ghrelin, a 28-amino-acid acylated peptide primarily produced in endocrine A/X cells located in the fundus of the stomach [26]. Secretion of ghrelin increases appetite and promotes gastric emptying and intestinal mobility, causing feelings of hunger. Langer et al. [12] reported that ghrelin levels remained unchanged immediately after LAGB but had increased after 1 and 6 months, whereas ghrelin was decreased both immediately and at 1 and 6 months after LSG. This is because the fundus of the stomach, where most ghrelin is produced, is resected in LSG, though ghrelin levels can be maintained by up to 45 % after gastrectomy due to secretion from other sites such as the upper small intestine [26]. Patients who undergo LSG thus have less appetite for food and a longer-lasting and stronger sensation of fullness, leading to less food intake and, ultimately, weight loss. However, it is reported that patients continue to lose weight regardless of ghrelin levels, which suggest a complex relationship between this hormone and weight loss that requires further study [11].

Another gastrointestinal hormone, peptide tyrosine–tyrosine (PYY), must also be considered. This 36-amino-acid peptide is produced by endocrine L cells in the distal ileum and colon and is secreted before lipids reach the distal ileum. PYY is associated with appetite and has a hunger-reducing effect. Xanthakos [26] reported that, after intravenous infusion of PYY in 12 obese and 12 lean human subjects, single meal intake decreased by 30 % in both obese and lean individuals. Moreover, PYY reduced levels of ghrelin, enhancing its hunger-reducing effect. Some reports indicate that, after LSG, PYY increases following a test meal [27], whereas PYY does not increase after LAGB; this increases the weight loss effect of LSG. Overall, both restriction of stomach volume and hormonal changes contribute to the greater weight loss achieved by LSG.

Insulin is important in the treatment of diabetes, and it is believed that insulin resistance is key to the association between morbid obesity and T2DM. Improved control of T2DM can be achieved by countering insulin resistance with increased insulin sensitivity. All surgical interventions that lead to weight loss will increase insulin sensitivity and therefore improve T2DM [14]. Improvement of T2DM after LAGB is directly related to weight loss; that is, the more weight lost, the more T2DM is improved or even resolved. However, for LSG, different studies draw differing conclusions. Abbatini [14] reported a statistically significant reduction in body mass index 3 months after LSG in a patient in whom T2DM was not resolved. These data suggest that improvement of T2DM after LSG may be unrelated to weight loss. However, Ding concluded that improvement of T2DM is largely related to weight loss after both LAGB and LSG and not a consequence of the surgical procedure used as Hady et al. did [11]. Patients who did not achieve a good rate of EWL showed little improvement in their diabetes [2]. Further studies are needed to clarify these discrepancies.

Incretins, including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), also play an important role. GLP-1 is secreted by intestinal endocrine L cells in the ileum and colon and is released into ingested food, especially that rich in lipids and glucose or other carbohydrates; it increases pancreatic secretion of insulin in response to oral glucose ingestion to decrease the level of glucose in the blood [26]. No increase of GLP-1 has been reported after LAGB, whereas it is speculated that GLP-1 increases following LSG, which further helps improve T2DM. The incretin gastric inhibitory peptide is also released as a response to food rich in lipids and glucose. These hormones not only improve T2DM but also help reduce weight.

All of the above factors may account for the weight loss observed after LSG and LABG and explain why LSG has a greater effect on EWL and improvement of T2DM. However, LAGB has advantages over LSG including easier technique, shorter operative time, and fewer early complications [28]. Furthermore, LAGB is less invasive than LSG and is totally reversible. These factors contribute to the popularity of LAGB among obese patients, but in terms of effect we consider LSG a better option.

There are limitations to this meta-analysis to which we must pay attention. First, the sample size of some of the studies was quite low, as was the number of studies included in our meta-analysis; this may have biased the results. Second, not all of the included trials were randomized because of a lack of qualified randomized studies providing the required details. Third, we did not compare improvements in other comorbidities following LAGB and LSG, and these factors may be important in assessing and recommending a procedure. Because LSG is a comparatively new procedure that has become popular in recent years, there is also concern about the long-term results; the follow-up periods in most reports are 6 or 12 months, and the studies analyzed here provided relatively short-term findings. Some studies that reported 3-year results were not included in this meta-analysis because of insufficient data, but their numbers are low. There are few reports with a follow-up period of 5 years or more. However, we believe that, with greater awareness and the increasing popularity of bariatric surgery, more long-term follow-up reports will be published.

In summary, this meta-analysis showed LSG to be a more effective procedure for morbid obesity than LABG, with a greater effect on EWL and improvement of T2DM. Larger, randomized, and long-term follow-up studies need to be conducted to compare the efficacy of LSG, LAGB, and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.


Abbreviations

LSG Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy
LAGB Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding
T2DM Type 2 diabetes mellitus
EWL Excess weight loss
LRYGB Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
BPD/DS Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch
PYY Peptide tyrosine–tyrosine
GLP-1 Glucagon-like peptide 1

References
1.. Kasama K,et al. Has laparoscopic bariatric surgery been accepted in Japan? The experience of a single surgeonObes SurgYear: 200818111473810.1007/s11695-008-9492-018398667
2.. Ding D,et al. Outcomes after laparoscopic surgery for 219 patients with obesityZhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za ZhiYear: 20111421283121365507
3.. Wong SK,et al. Laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a five-year reviewHong Kong Med JYear: 2009152100919342735
4.. Nocca D. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: which has a place in the treatment of diabetes in morbidly obese patients?Diabetes MetabYear: 2009356 Pt 2524710.1016/S1262-3636(09)73460-320152738
5.. Kueper MA,et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: standardized technique of a potential stand-alone bariatric procedure in morbidly obese patientsWorld J SurgYear: 20083271462510.1007/s00268-008-9548-218368447
6.. Alley JB,et al. Quality of life after sleeve gastrectomy and adjustable gastric bandingSurg Obes Relat DisYear: 201281314010.1016/j.soard.2011.03.00921620778
7.. Breznikar B,Dinevski D. Bariatric surgery for morbid obesity: pre-operative assessment, surgical techniques and post-operative monitoringJ Int Med ResYear: 200937516324510.1177/14732300090370054319930873
8.. Brunault P,et al. Observations regarding ‘quality of life’ and ‘comfort with food’ after bariatric surgery: comparison between laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomyObes SurgYear: 201121812253110.1007/s11695-011-0411-421533881
9.. Fenske WK et al. Effect of bariatric surgery-induced weight loss on renal and systemic inflammation and blood pressure: a 12-month prospective study. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012.
10.. Gan SS,Talbot ML,Jorgensen JO. Efficacy of surgery in the management of obesity-related type 2 diabetes mellitusANZ J SurgYear: 200777119586210.1111/j.1445-2197.2007.04290.x17931257
11.. Hady HR,et al. The influence of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy on weight loss, plasma ghrelin, insulin, glucose and lipidsFolia Histochem CytobiolYear: 20125021578510.5603/FHC.2012.0039
12.. Langer FB,et al. Sleeve gastrectomy and gastric banding: effects on plasma ghrelin levelsObes SurgYear: 20051571024910.1381/096089205462112516105401
13.. Omana JJ,et al. Comparison of comorbidity resolution and improvement between laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic adjustable gastric bandingSurg EndoscYear: 201024102513710.1007/s00464-010-0995-020339873
14.. Abbatini F,et al. Long-term effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and adjustable gastric banding on type 2 diabetesSurg EndoscYear: 201024510051010.1007/s00464-009-0715-919866235
15.. Brockmeyer JR,et al. Upper gastrointestinal swallow study following bariatric surgery: institutional review and review of the literatureObes SurgYear: 201222710394310.1007/s11695-012-0658-422527600
16.. Farrell TM,et al. Clinical application of laparoscopic bariatric surgery: an evidence-based reviewSurg EndoscYear: 20092359304910.1007/s00464-008-0217-119125308
17.. Franco JV,et al. A review of studies comparing three laparoscopic procedures in bariatric surgery: sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and adjustable gastric bandingObes SurgYear: 201121914586810.1007/s11695-011-0390-521455833
18.. Heinberg LJ,Keating K,Simonelli L. Discrepancy between ideal and realistic goal weights in three bariatric procedures: who is likely to be unrealistic?Obes SurgYear: 20102021485310.1007/s11695-009-9982-819789932
19.. Himpens J,Dapri G,Cadiere GB. A prospective randomized study between laparoscopic gastric banding and laparoscopic isolated sleeve gastrectomy: results after 1 and 3 yearsObes SurgYear: 200616111450610.1381/09608920677886993317132410
20.. Himpens J,De Schepper M,Dapri G. Laparoscopic conversion of adjustable gastric banding to sleeve gastrectomy: a feasibility studySurg Laparosc Endosc Percutan TechYear: 2010203162510.1097/SLE.0b013e3181e31fa920551814
21.. Kasza J,et al. Analysis of poor outcomes after laparoscopic adjustable gastric bandingSurg EndoscYear: 201125141710.1007/s00464-010-1126-720589514
22.. Li VK,et al. Predictors of gallstone formation after bariatric surgery: a multivariate analysis of risk factors comparing gastric bypass, gastric banding, and sleeve gastrectomySurg EndoscYear: 20092371640410.1007/s00464-008-0204-619057954
23.. Lomanto D,et al. Bariatric surgery in Asia in the last 5 years (2005–2009)Obes SurgYear: 2012223502610.1007/s11695-011-0547-222033767
24.. Schroeder R,Garrison JM Jr,Johnson MS. Treatment of adult obesity with bariatric surgeryAm Fam PhysicianYear: 20118478051422010619
25.. Zundel N,Hernandez JD. Revisional surgery after restrictive procedures for morbid obesitySurg Laparosc Endosc Percutan TechYear: 20102053384310.1097/SLE.0b013e3181f6287a20975506
26.. Xanthakos SA. Bariatric surgery for extreme adolescent obesity: indications, outcomes, and physiologic effects on the gut–brain axisPathophysiologyYear: 20081521354610.1016/j.pathophys.2008.04.00518585904
27.. Karamanakos SN,et al. Weight loss, appetite suppression, and changes in fasting and postprandial ghrelin and peptide-YY levels after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective, double blind studyAnn SurgYear: 20082473401710.1097/SLA.0b013e318156f01218376181
28.. Chakravarty PD,et al. Comparison of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) with other bariatric procedures; a systematic review of the randomised controlled trialsSurgeonYear: 20121031728210.1016/j.surge.2012.02.00122405735

Figures

[Figure ID: Fig1]
Fig. 1 

Forest plot of comparison: (1) LAGB vs LSG in terms of short-term results, outcome: (1.1) resolution of diabetes. Odds ratios are shown with 95 % CIs



[Figure ID: Fig2]
Fig. 2 

Forest plot of comparison: (1) LAGB vs LSG in terms of short-term results, outcome: (1.2) EWL% (6 months). Mean differences are shown with 95 % CIs



[Figure ID: Fig3]
Fig. 3 

Forest plot of comparison: (1) LAGB vs LSG in terms of short-term results, outcome: (1.3) EWL% (12 months). Mean differences are shown with 95 % CIs



[Figure ID: Fig4]
Fig. 4 

Funnel plot of comparison: (1) LAGB vs LSG in terms of short-term results, outcome: (1.1) resolution of diabetes. OR odds ratio



[Figure ID: Fig5]
Fig. 5 

Funnel plot of comparison: (1) LAGB vs LSG in terms of short-term results, outcome: (1.2) EWL% (6 months). Mean difference



[Figure ID: Fig6]
Fig. 6 

Forest plot of comparison: (1) LAGB vs LSG in terms of short-term results, outcome: (1.3) EWL% (12 months). Mean difference



Tables
[TableWrap ID: Tab1] Table 1 

Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis


Author Year Number of cases Mean BMI (kg/m2) Mean age (years) Male/female
LAGB LSG LAGB LSG LAGB LSG LAGB LSG
Simon KH Wong et al. 2009 57 30 40 ± 7 45 ± 8 41 ± 9 33 ± 7 24:33 9:21
B Breznikar et al. 2009 180 30 42.6 (29.4–50.0) 51.6 (40.9–67.5) 41.2(17.2–68.8) 43.5 (22.8–60.4) 21:159 10:20
Juan J. Omana et al. 2010 74 49 44 ± 5 52 ± 11 41 ± 14 45 ± 12 16:58 13:36
Joshua B. Alley et al. 2012 39 69 41.9 ±5.2 42.7 ± 5.0 47.0 ± 9.5 49.6 ± 10.7 7:32 15:54
Kazunori Kasama et al. 2008 13 23 37.5 ± 4 49.1 ± 12 43¡À10 38 ± 10 5:8 17:6
Paul Brunault et al. 2011 102 29 48.1 ± 6.1 54.3 ± 10.6 39.3 ± 9.6 41.0 ± 10.6 17:85 7:22
Susan S. H. Gan et al. 2007 12 21 45.6 52.8 N N 2:10 8:13
W. K. Fenske et al. 2012 13 11 44.6 ± 9 N 35–54 35–54 N N
F. B. Langer et al. 2005 10 10 46.7 ± 35 (45–54) 48.3 ± 5.7 (41–56) 38.5 ± 13.6 39.3 ± 11.7 1:9 1:9
M. A. Kueper et al. 2008 16 16 44.9 (41–65) 49.1 (43–68) 43.9 (27–62) 42.8 (24–68) 7:9 7:9
H. R. Hady et al. 2012 100 100 45.21 ± 3.96 52.15 ± 8.5 37.0 ± 12.6/39.18 ± 12.77 47.93 ± 9.24/44.19 ± 9.33 34:66 48:52

[TableWrap ID: Tab2] Table 2 

Main outcomes of the 12 studies included in the meta-analysis


Author Improve or resolve diabetes mellitus EWL% (6 months) EWL% (12 months)
LAGB LSG LAGB LSG LAGB LSG
Simon KH Wong et al. N N 27 ± 26 63 ± 33 31 ± 24 65 ± 32
B Breznikar et al. 16/22 6/8 N N 52.4 (−2.0–145.3) 57.9 (7.6–92.3)
Juan J. Omana et al. 6/13 14/14 25.2 ± 12 39.5 ± 16 40.3 ± 19 50.6 ± 19
Joshua B. Alley et al. 11/17 22/31 N N 29.5 ± 16.7 47.2 ± 11.9
Kazunori Kasama et al. 3/4 4/6 N N N N
Paul Brunault et al. N N 34.8 ± 18.4 43.8 ± 17.8 34.8 ± 18.4 43.8 ± 17.8
Susan S. H. Gan 6/12 20/21 N N 34.2 35.9
W. K. Fenske et al. N N N N 45.0 ± 2.4 47.8 ± 4.5
S. K. H. Wong N N N N 25.4 ± 20.2 68.6 ± 39.6
F. B. Langer et al. N N 28.1 ± 10.6 61.4 ± 16.3 N N
M. A. Kueper et al. N N 39.1 ± 19.1 33.0 ± 10 N N
H. R. Hady et al. 4/8 18/39 48.98 ± 6.58 62.71 ± 21.17 N N

EWL excess weight loss



Article Categories:
  • Review

Keywords: Keywords Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, Type 2 diabetes mellitus, Morbid obesity, Bariatric surgery.

Previous Document:  TT2013 meeting report: the Transgenic Technology meeting visits Asia for the first time.
Next Document:  Clinical Features and Outcome of Postoperative Peritonitis Following Bariatric Surgery.