Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a case-matched study.


Journal

Gastrointestinal endoscopy
ISSN: 1097-6779
Titre abrégé: Gastrointest Endosc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0010505

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2019
Historique:
received: 03 05 2018
accepted: 12 08 2018
pubmed: 28 8 2018
medline: 17 9 2019
entrez: 28 8 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) reduces the gastric lumen to a size comparable with that of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, there is a paucity of research comparing outcomes between the 2 procedures. Our study compared the 6-month weight loss outcomes and adverse events of ESG with LSG in a case-matched cohort. We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data for patients undergoing ESG or LSG at a single academic center. Weight was recorded at 1 and 6 months postprocedure, and percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) was calculated. Adverse events and new-onset Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) were also recorded. A total of 54 ESG patients were matched with 83 LSG patients by age, sex, and body mass index. The proportion of patients with GERD at baseline was similar in the 2 groups (16.7% in ESG group vs 25.3% in LSG group, P = .27). At the 6-month follow-up, %TBWL (compared with baseline) was significantly lower in the ESG group compared with the LSG group (17.1% ± 6.5% vs 23.6% ± 7.6%, P < .01). ESG patients had significantly lower rates of adverse events compared with LSG patients (5.2% vs 16.9%, P < .05). New-onset GERD was also significantly lower in the ESG group compared with the LSG group (1.9% vs 14.5%, P < .05). ESG, a minimally invasive same-day procedure, achieved less weight loss at 6 months than LSG, with the caveat that LSG caused more adverse events and new-onset GERD than ESG.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) reduces the gastric lumen to a size comparable with that of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, there is a paucity of research comparing outcomes between the 2 procedures. Our study compared the 6-month weight loss outcomes and adverse events of ESG with LSG in a case-matched cohort.
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data for patients undergoing ESG or LSG at a single academic center. Weight was recorded at 1 and 6 months postprocedure, and percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) was calculated. Adverse events and new-onset Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) were also recorded.
RESULTS
A total of 54 ESG patients were matched with 83 LSG patients by age, sex, and body mass index. The proportion of patients with GERD at baseline was similar in the 2 groups (16.7% in ESG group vs 25.3% in LSG group, P = .27). At the 6-month follow-up, %TBWL (compared with baseline) was significantly lower in the ESG group compared with the LSG group (17.1% ± 6.5% vs 23.6% ± 7.6%, P < .01). ESG patients had significantly lower rates of adverse events compared with LSG patients (5.2% vs 16.9%, P < .05). New-onset GERD was also significantly lower in the ESG group compared with the LSG group (1.9% vs 14.5%, P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS
ESG, a minimally invasive same-day procedure, achieved less weight loss at 6 months than LSG, with the caveat that LSG caused more adverse events and new-onset GERD than ESG.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30148991
pii: S0016-5107(18)32988-2
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.08.030
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

782-788

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Lea Fayad (L)

Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Atif Adam (A)

Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Michael Schweitzer (M)

Division of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Lawrence J Cheskin (LJ)

Johns Hopkins Weight Management Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Tokunbo Ajayi (T)

Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Margo Dunlap (M)

Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Dilhana S Badurdeen (DS)

Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Christine Hill (C)

Johns Hopkins Weight Management Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Neethi Paranji (N)

Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Sepehr Lalezari (S)

Division of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Anthony N Kalloo (AN)

Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Mouen A Khashab (MA)

Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Vivek Kumbhari (V)

Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH