title: Medium-Term Results of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Matched Comparison with Gastric Bypass.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is considered a primary bariatric surgery and is increasingly being performed worldwide; however, long-term data regarding the durability of this procedure are inadequate. Here, we report the long-term results of LSGs in comparison to those of gastric bypass surgeries.
  
  
  METHODS
  A prospectively collected bariatric database from Ming-Shen General Hospital was retrospectively studied. Five hundred nineteen morbidly obese patients (mean age 36.0 ± 9.1 years old (14-71), 74.6 % female, mean body mass index (BMI) 37.5 ± 6.1 kg/m(2)) underwent LSG as a primary bariatric procedure from 2006 to 2012 at our institute. The operative parameters, weight loss, laboratory data, and quality of life were followed. Another two matched groups of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and laparoscopic single anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass (SAGB) patients who were matched in terms of age, sex, and BMI were recruited for comparisons.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean surgical time for LSG was 113.5 ± 31.3 min, and the mean blood loss was 49.1 + 100.9 ml. The rate of major complications was 1.6 %, and the average length of the postoperative stay was 3.0 ± 1.7 days. The operation times of the RYGB patients were longer than those of both the LSG and SAGB patients. The RYGB and SAGB patients experienced higher major complication rate than the LSG patients. The weight loss of the LSG patient at 5 years was 28.3 + 8.9 %, and the mean BMI was 27.1 + 4.3. The RYGB patients exhibited a 5-year weight loss similar to the LSG patients, and the SAGB patients exhibited greater weight loss than both of the other groups. Both the RYGB and SAGB patients exhibited significantly better glycemic control and lower blood lipids than the LSG patients, but the LSG patients exhibited a lesser micronutrient deficiency than the RYGB and SAGB groups. All three of the groups exhibited improved quality of life at 5 years after surgery, and there was no significant between-group difference in this measure.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  LSG appears to be an ideal bariatric surgery, and the efficacy of this surgery is not inferior to that of gastric bypass.
authors: Department of Surgery, Min-Sheng General Hospital, No. 168, Chin Kuo Road, Tauoyan, Taiwan, Republic of China, wjlee_obessurg_tw@yahoo.com.tw.
authors: Wei-Jei
authors: WJ
authors: Lee
authors: Eng-Hong
authors: EH
authors: Pok
authors: Abdullah
authors: A
authors: Almulaifi
authors: Ju Juin
authors: JJ
authors: Tsou
authors: Kong-Han
authors: KH
authors: Ser
authors: Yi-Chih
authors: YC
authors: Lee
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D015992:Body Mass Index; D005260:Female; D005743:Gastrectomy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D015390:Gastric Bypass / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009767:Obesity, Morbid / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000601:surgery*; D061646:Operative Time; D011788:Quality of Life; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D015431:Weight Loss; D055815:Young Adult
references: World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun 14;20(22):7027-33
references: 24944498
references: Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2011 Nov-Dec;7(6):749-59
references: 21945699
references: Obes Surg. 2006 Jul;16(7):913-8
references: 16839493
references: N Engl J Med. 2014 May 22;370(21):2002-13
references: 24679060
references: Obes Surg. 2012 Dec;22(12):1827-34
references: 23011462
references: Surg Endosc. 2011 Aug;25(8):2498-504
references: 21359900
references: Obes Surg. 2013 Apr;23(4):427-36
references: 23338049
references: Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012 Nov-Dec;8(6):679-84
references: 21890430
references: Ann Surg. 2005 Jul;242(1):20-8
references: 15973097
references: PLoS One. 2014 May 06;9(5):e96489
references: 24800810
references: Obes Surg. 2008 May;18(5):487-96
references: 18357494
references: Am J Surg. 2000 Jul;180(1):41-5
references: 11036138
references: Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013 Jan-Feb;9(1):21-5
references: 23201209
references: Ann Surg. 2010 Aug;252(2):319-24
references: 20622654
references: Ann Surg. 2011 Sep;254(3):410-20; discussion 420-2
references: 21865942
references: Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2009 Jul-Aug;5(4):476-85
references: 19632647
references: Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013 Sep-Oct;9(5):816-29
references: 23993246
references: Surg Endosc. 2010 Sep;24(9):2253-9
references: 20174931
references: Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012 Jan-Feb;8(1):8-19
references: 22248433
references: Obes Surg. 1998 Jun;8(3):267-82
references: 9678194
references: Obes Surg. 2012 Apr;22(4):536-43
references: 22170392
references: Ann Surg. 2013 Nov;258(5):690-4; discussion 695
references: 23989054
references: Nature. 2014 May 8;509(7499):183-8
references: 24670636
references: Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013 May-Jun;9(3):356-61
references: 22867558
references: Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012 Mar-Apr;8(2):208-13
references: 21315662
references: Ann Surg. 2008 Mar;247(3):401-7
references: 18376181
references: Asian J Endosc Surg. 2013 Nov;6(4):303-6
references: 24308590
references: Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014 Jan-Feb;10(1):177-83
references: 24507083
references: Obes Surg. 2010 May;20(5):535-40
references: 20094819
references: Br J Surg. 1995 Feb;82(2):216-22
references: 7749697
references: J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jan;49(1):57-63
references: 23595611
references: Ann Surg. 2013 Dec;258(6):976-82
references: 23160151
references: Ann Surg. 2002 Dec;236(6):750-8; discussion 758
references: 12454513
references: Obes Surg. 2003 Dec;13(6):861-4
references: 14738671
references: Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2011 Nov-Dec;7(6):714-9
references: 22014484
references: Arch Surg. 2011 Feb;146(2):143-8
references: 21339423
references: Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):234-41
references: 19638921
references: N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 26;366(17):1567-76
references: 22449319