A Comprehensive Comparison of LRYGB and LSG in Obese Patients Including the Effects on QoL, Comorbidities, Weight Loss, and Complications: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Obesity surgery Vol. 30; no. 3; pp. 819 - 827
• Main Authors: Hu, Zhihao, Sun, Junfeng, Li, Ruixin, Wang, Zhuoyin, Ding, Hengxuan, Zhu, Tianyu, Wang, Guojun
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01-03-2020; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adult; Comorbidity; Female; Gastrectomy - adverse effects; Gastrectomy - methods; Gastrectomy - statistics & numerical data; Gastric Bypass - adverse effects; Gastric Bypass - methods; Gastric Bypass - statistics & numerical data; Gastrointestinal surgery; Humans; Laparoscopy - adverse effects; Laparoscopy - methods; Laparoscopy - statistics & numerical data; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Meta-analysis; Middle Aged; Obesity, Morbid - epidemiology; Obesity, Morbid - surgery; Original Contributions; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Quality of Life; Surgery; Surveys and Questionnaires; Treatment Outcome; Weight Loss - physiology; Three-stage analysis; Obesity surgery; Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy
• ISSN: 0960-8923; 1708-0428
• DOI: 10.1007/s11695-019-04306-4

Purpose
To systematically and comprehensively evaluate the differences between laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) versus sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in obese patients.
Methods
A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 2018. The meta-analysis was performed by the RevMan 5.3 software.
Results
Twenty-three articles with 7443 patients were included. In short term (< 3 years), LRYGB was superior to LSG in terms of improving comorbidities (T2D, odds ratio (OR) 1.93, 1.06–3.52,
P
 < 0.05, hypertension, OR 1.59, 1.08–2.34,
P
 < 0.05, dyslipidemia, OR 1.61, 1.05–2.46,
P
 < 0.05), but there were no differences in the midterm and long term. Quality of life (QoL) after bariatric surgery was included, but no differences were observed in the QoL after LRYGB or LSG (gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI) and Moorehead–Ardelt quality of life questionnaire (M-A-Q),
P
 > 0.05). LRYGB achieved a higher EWL% than LSG (after 3 years, WMD 5.48, 0.13–10.84.
P
 < 0.05; after 5 years, WMD 4.55, 1.04–8.05,
P
 < 0.05) in long term, but no significant differences were found during 0.25- to 2.0-year follow-up. The rate of early and late complications was much higher in LRYGB than in LSG (early complications, OR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.53–2.91,
P
 < 0.001; late complications, OR = 2.60, 95% CI = 1.93–3.49,
P
 < 0.001).
Conclusions
This meta-analysis showed that LRYGB was more effective than LSG in comorbidities’ resolution or improvement in short term. For weight loss, LRYGB had better long-term effects than LSG. In addition, no differences were observed in the quality of life after LRYGB or LSG. LRYGB was associated with more complications than LSG.