Maternal and neonatal outcomes after bariatric surgery; a systematic review and meta-analysis: do the benefits outweigh the risks?

OBJECTIVE DATA: Obesity during pregnancy is associated with a number of adverse obstetric outcomes that include gestational diabetes mellitus, macrosomia, and preeclampsia. Increasing evidence shows that bariatric surgery may decrease the risk of these outcomes. Our aim was to evaluate the benefits and risks of bariatric surgery in obese women according to obstetric outcomes. STUDY: We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and PubMed from inception up to December 12, 2016. Studies were included if they evaluated patients who underwent bariatric surgery, reported subsequent pregnancy outcomes, and compared these outcomes with a control group. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two reviewers extracted study outcomes independently, and risk of bias was assessed with the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Pooled odds ratios for each outcome were estimated with the Dersimonian and Laird random effects model. RESULTS: After a review of 2616 abstracts, 20 cohort studies and approximately 2.8 million subjects (8364 of whom had bariatric surgery) were included in the meta-analysis. In our primary analysis, patients who underwent bariatric surgery showed reduced rates of gestational diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.37, number needed to benefit, 5), large-for-gestational-age infants (odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.59; number needed to benefit, 6), gestational hypertension (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.76; number needed to benefit, 11), all hypertensive disorders (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.53; number needed to benefit, 8), postpartum hemorrhage (odds ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-1.37; number needed to benefit, 21), and caesarean delivery rates (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.67; number needed to benefit, 9); however, group of patients showed an increase in small-for-gestational-age infants (odds ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-3.48; number needed to harm, 21), intrauterine growth restriction (odds ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-3.48; number needed to harm, 66), and preterm deliveries (odds ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.79; number needed to harm, 35) when compared with control subjects who were matched for presurgery body mass index. There were no differences in rates of preeclampsia, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, stillbirths, malformations, and neonatal death. Malabsorptive surgeries resulted in a greater increase in small-for-gestational-age infants (P=.0466) and a greater decrease in large-forgestational-age infants (P = <.0001) compared with restrictive surgeries. There were no differences in outcomes when we used administrative databases vs clinical charts. CONCLUSION: Although bariatric surgery is associated with a reduction in the risk of several adverse obstetric outcomes, there is a potential for an increased risk of other important outcomes that should be considered when bariatric surgery is discussed with reproductive-age women.