Retrospective Cohort Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 28, 2015; 21(44): 12612-12619
Published online Nov 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i44.12612
Laparoscopic gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy in obese Korean patients
Ji Yeon Park, Yong Jin Kim
Ji Yeon Park, Yong Jin Kim, Department of Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Seoul 140-743, South Korea
Ji Yeon Park, Department of Surgery, National Cancer Center, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do 410-769, South Korea
Author contributions: Kim YJ designed and performed the research; Park JY analyzed the data and wrote the paper.
Institutional review board statement: The study was reviewed and approved by the Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital Institutional Review Board (SCHUH 2014-12-006).
Conflict-of-interest statement: Drs. Ji Yeon Park and Yong Jin Kim have no financial ties to disclose.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Yong Jin Kim, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, 59, Daesagwan-ro, Yongsan-gu, Seoul 140-743, South Korea. yjgs1997@gmail.com
Telephone: +82-2-7099479 Fax: +82-2-7951687
Received: March 16, 2015
Peer-review started: March 17, 2015
First decision: May 18, 2015
Revised: May 26, 2015
Accepted: August 29, 2015
Article in press: August 31, 2015
Published online: November 28, 2015
Processing time: 256 Days and 3.3 Hours
Abstract

AIM: To compare the mid-term outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) in obese Korean patients.

METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent either LSG or LRYGB with primary to treat morbid obesity between January 2011 and December 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 with inadequately controlled obesity-related comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, or obesity-related arthropathy) or BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 were considered for bariatric surgery according to the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity-Asia Pacific Chapter Consensus statements in 2011. The decision regarding the procedure type was made on an individual basis following extensive discussion with the patient about the specific risks associated with each procedure. All operative procedures were performed laparoscopically by a single surgeon experienced in upper gastrointestinal surgeries. Baseline demographics, perioperative surgical outcomes, and postoperative anthropometric data from a prospectively established database were thoroughly reviewed and compared between the two surgical approaches.

RESULTS: One hundred four patients underwent LSG, and 236 underwent LRYGB. Preoperative BMI in the LSG group was significantly higher than that of the LRYGB group (38.6 kg/m2vs 37.2 kg/m2, P = 0.024). Patients with diabetes were more prevalent in the LRYGB group (18.3% vs 35.6%, P = 0.001). Operating time and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the LSG group compared with the LRYGB group (100 min vs 130 min, P < 0.001; 1 d vs 2 d, P = 0.003), but the incidence of perioperative complications was similar between the groups (P = 0.351). The mean percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) was 71.2% for LRYGB, while it was 63.5% for LSG, at mean follow-up periods of 18.0 and 21.0 mo, respectively (P = 0.073). The %EWL at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 mo was equivalent between the groups. Four patients required surgical revision after LSG (4.8%), while revision was only required in one case following LRYGB (0.4%; P = 0.011).

CONCLUSION: Both LSG and LRYGB are effective procedures that induce comparable weight loss in the mid-term and similar surgical risks, except for the higher revision rate after LSG.

Keywords: Morbid obesity; Bariatric surgery; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; Sleeve gastrectomy; Weight loss

Core tip: Both laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are effective procedures that result in comparable weight loss in the mid-term with similar surgical risks in obese Korean patients. However, a larger number of patients required revisional surgery following LSG than LRYGB. The long-term complications encountered after each procedure differed significantly, and these complications were not negligible. Surgeons should provide a tailored surgical option for each patient that takes into consideration the possible risks, as the long-term complications may have a significant influence on the quality of life following the surgery.