4.4 Review

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic mini gastric bypass. A systematic review

Journal

SURGERY FOR OBESITY AND RELATED DISEASES
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages 984-991

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2014.02.009

Keywords

Laparoscopic mini gastric bypass; efficacy; safety; bariatric procedure

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (LMGB) is a relatively new bariatric procedure; published studies are accumulating in various settings. The objective of this study was to summarize the available evidence about the efficacy and safety of LMGB. Methods: A systematic search in the literature was performed, and PubMed and reference lists were scrutinized (end-of-search date: July 15, 2013). For the assessment of the eligible articles, the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used. Results: Ten eligible studies were included in this study, reporting data on 4,899 patients. According to all included studies, LMGB induced substantial weight and body mass index reduction, as well as substantial excess weight loss. Moreover, resolution or improvement in all major associated medical illnesses and improvement in overall Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index score were recorded. Major bleeding and anastomotic ulcer were the most commonly reported complications. Readmission rate ranged from 0%- 11%, whereas the rate of revision operations ranged from .3%- 6%. The latter were conducted due to a variety of medical reasons such as inadequate or excessive weight loss, malnutrition, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Finally, the mortality rate ranged between 0% and .5% among primary LMGB procedures. Conclusion: LMGB represents an effective bariatric procedure; its safety and minimal postoperative morbidity seem remarkable. Randomized comparative studies seem mandatory for the further evaluation of LMGB. (C) 2014 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available