LSG by the posterior approach is a safe and effective procedure, enabling a tight sleeve formation leading to satisfactory %EWL results. Since long-term results of LSG are unknown, further studies are needed to define the exact place of the LSG as a stand-alone bariatric procedure.

BackgroundObesity is an increasing disease worldwide. Bariatric surgery is the only effective therapy to induce sufficient long-term weight loss for morbidly obese patients. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) is the gold standard surgical technique. Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) is a new promising bariatric procedure which has the advantage of maintaining an intact gastrointestinal tract. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of both techniques. Our hypothesis is that LSG has a similar percentage excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) after 5 years compared to LRYGB.Methods/DesignThe Sleeve Bypass Trial is a randomized multicentre clinical trial: patients eligible for bariatric surgery are randomized to either LSG or LRYGB. Patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m2 or BMI 35 kg/m2 with obesity related comorbidity (T2 DM, sleep apnoea, hypertension) are eligible for randomization. At randomization patients are stratified for centre, sex, T2 DM and BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2. A total number of 620 patients will be enrolled and equally (1:1) randomized to both treatment arms. Only surgeons experienced in both operation techniques will participate in the Sleeve Bypass trial. The primary endpoint is the 5-year weight loss (%EBMIL) of LSG and LRYGB. Secondary endpoints are resolution of obesity related comorbidity, complications, revision bariatric surgery and quality of life (QOL) defined in various questionnaires.DiscussionLong-term %EBMIL between the two treatment strategies used to be in favour of LRYGB, but more recent results throughout the world show similar %EBMIL in both techniques. If weight loss is comparable, obesity-related comorbidity and QOL after bariatric procedures should be taken into account when deciding on which surgical technique is to be preferred for certain subgroups in the future.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register: NTR 4741.

Background Failure occurs in up to 60% of the patients that were treated with primary restrictive bariatric operations such as Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding (LAGB), or restrictive/metabolic operations like Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG). Insufficient weight loss and weight regain are the most commonly reported reasons of failure. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to compare One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) as a revisional procedure in terms of weight loss, procedure time, complication rate and morbidity. Methods 491 patients operated on between 2012 and 2017 for failed restrictive surgery were included in this study (OAGB (n=185) or RYGB (n=306)). Failure was defined as total weight loss (TWL) less than 25%, excess weight loss (EWL) less than 50% and/or a remaining body mass index (BMI) larger than 40 kg/m2 at two years of follow up. Primary outcome measures were %TWL and % excess BMI loss (EBMIL) at 12, 24 and 36 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were procedure time, reduction of comorbidity, early and late complication rate, and mortality. Results %TWL was significantly larger in the OAGB group at 12 months (mean 24.1±9.8 vs. 21.9±9.7, p = 0.023) and 24 months (mean 23.9±11.7 vs. 20.5±11.2, p = 0.023) of follow-up. %EBMIL was significantly larger in the OAGB group at 12 months (mean 69.0±44.6 vs. 60.0±30.1, p = 0.014) and 24 months (mean 68.6±51.6 vs. 56.4±35.4, p = 0.025) of follow-up. Intraabdominal complications (leakage, bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess and perforation) occurred less frequently after revisional OAGB (1.1% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.025). Surgical intervention for biliary reflux (5.4% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001) was more prevalent in the OAGB group. Surgical intervention for internal herniation (0.0% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.002) was more prevalent in the RYGB group. Conclusions This study suggests that OAGB is superior to RYGB as a remedy for insufficient weight loss and weight regain after failed restrictive surgery with more weight loss and a lower early complication rate. To substantiate these findings, further research from prospective randomized controlled trials is needed.

This study adds to the currently available data confirming the LSG to be a safe and effective procedure at long term. Data from high-volume studies are needed to establish the definite role of the LSG in the spectrum of bariatric procedures.

LRYGB is a safe and effective treatment in morbid obese patients with good long-term outcomes. LSG seems to be an appropriate alternative as a definitive procedure, in terms of weight reduction and complication rate. LAGB is inferior to both LRYGB and LSG.