Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty, Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy, and Laparoscopic Band for Weight Loss: How Do They Compare?

Novikov, Aleksey; Afaneh, Cheguevara; Saumoy, Monica; Parra, Viviana; Shukla, Alpana; Dakin, Gregory; Pomp, Alfons; Dawod, Enad; Shah, Shawn L.; Aronne, Louis J.; Sharaiha, Reem Z.

doi:10.1007/s11605-017-3615-7

Cited by 100 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At 6 months, ESG demonstrated significantly lower %TWL when compared to LSG (17 % vs 24 %, P < 0.01) and the overall adverse events were lower with ESG than LSG (5 % vs 17 %, P < 0.05). The findings of the study by Fayad et al were consistent with an earlier study by Novikov et al, who demonstrated comparable %TWL at 12 months for BMI < 40 kg/m 2 between ESG and LSG [49]. This study differs in the reported %TWL outcome between ESG and LSG at 12 months.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Outcomes of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty; how does it compare to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and study aims Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a novel moderately invasive technique in endo-bariatrics as compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Data is limited as to its efficacy and safety. Methods We searched multiple databases from inception through August 2019 to identify studies that reported on ESG in the treatment of obesity. Our goals were to calculate the pooled rates of total weight loss (%TWL), excess weight loss (%EWL), and body mass index (BMI) at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months with ESG. We included studies that reported on LSG, in a similar time frame as ESG, and compared the 12-month outcomes. Results From eight studies on ESG (1815 patients), the pooled rates of %TWL at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months were 8.7 (7.2–10.2), 15.3 (14.1–16.6) and 17.1 (15.1–19.1), respectively. The pooled rates of %EWL at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months were 31.7 (29.3–34.1), 59.4 (57–61.8) and 63 (51.3–74.6), respectively. The pooled rates of BMI at 1 m, 6 m, and 12 m were 32.6 (31–34.3), 30.4 (29–31.8) and 30 (27.7–32.3, I2 = 97), respectively. At 12 months, the pooled %TWL, %EWL and BMI with LSG (7 studies, 2179 patients) were 30.5 (27.4–33.5), 69.3 (60.1–78.4) and 29.3 (27.1–31.4) respectively. On comparison analysis, %TWL with LSG was superior to ESG (P = 0.001). %EWL and BMI were comparable. All adverse events, bleeding and gastro-esophageal reflux disease were significantly lower with ESG when compared to LSG. Conclusion ESG demonstrates acceptable weight loss parameters and seems to have a better safety profile when compared to LSG.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Outcomes of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty; how does it compare to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Proportion meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies found a pooled incidence of 20% (95% CI 13% to 26%, df = 10, I 2 = 89%) for complications requiring surgical intervention, 2% (95% CI 1% to 3%, df = 7, I 2 = 0%) for band erosion, 7% (95% CI 4% to 10%, df = 9, I 2 = 72%) for band removal, 4% (95% CI 3% to 5%, df = 6, I 2 = 0) for port revision, and 19% (95% CI 12 to 26%, df = 8, I 2 = 85%) for overall complications [77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89].…”

Section: Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) on bariatric surgery: update 2020 endorsed by IFSO-EC, EASO and ESPCOP

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Surgery for obesity and metabolic diseases has been evolved in the light of new scientific evidence, long-term outcomes and accumulated experience. EAES has sponsored an update of previous guidelines on bariatric surgery. Methods A multidisciplinary group of bariatric surgeons, obesity physicians, nutritional experts, psychologists, anesthetists and a patient representative comprised the guideline development panel. Development and reporting conformed to GRADE guidelines and AGREE II standards. Results Systematic review of databases, record selection, data extraction and synthesis, evidence appraisal and evidence-todecision frameworks were developed for 42 key questions in the domains Indication; Preoperative work-up; Perioperative management; Non-bypass, bypass and one-anastomosis procedures; Revisional surgery; Postoperative care; and Investigational procedures. A total of 36 recommendations and position statements were formed through a modified Delphi procedure. and Other Interventional Techniques Disclaimer This clinical practice guideline has been developed under the auspice of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). It is intended to be used primarily by health professionals (e.g. surgeons, anesthetists, physicians) and to assist in making informed clinical decisions on diagnostic measures and therapeutic management. It is also intended to inform individual practice of allied health professionals (e.g. surgical nurses, dietitians, physical rehabilitation therapists, psychologists); to inform strategic planning and resource management by healthcare authorities (e.g. regional and national authorities, healthcare institutions, hospital administration authorities); and to inform patients wishing to obtain an overview of the condition of interest and its management. The use of recommendations contained herein must be informed by supporting evidence accompanying each recommendation and by research evidence that might not have been published by the time of writing the present document. Users must thus base their actions informed by newly published evidence at any given point Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

show abstract

“…1 Given these limitations, particularly in patients with lower body mass index (between 30 to 40 kg/m 2 ), endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is an attractive minimally invasive endoscopic alternative to surgery that expands the therapeutic benefits of effective obesity interventions targeting the GI tract to patients who do not qualify for or wish to pursue bariatric surgery. 2 In the largest series of patients undergoing ESG to date, Alqahtani et al 3 add to a growing body of literature that suggests ESG is ready for prime time in the evolving management paradigm of obesity and metabolic disease. In their first 1000 cases, the mean percentage of total body weight loss at 12 months was 15.0% AE 7.7%, with an SAE rate of <0.01, consistent with previously reported multicenter data.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty for obesity: defining the risk and reward after more than 1600 procedures

Storm

Dayyeh

2019

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty, Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy, and Laparoscopic Band for Weight Loss: How Do They Compare?

Abstract: Although LSG is the most effective option for weight loss, ESG is a safe and feasible endobariatric option associated with low morbidity and short LOS in select patients.

Cited by 100 publications

References 27 publications

Outcomes of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty; how does it compare to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcomes of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty; how does it compare to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) on bariatric surgery: update 2020 endorsed by IFSO-EC, EASO and ESPCOP

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty for obesity: defining the risk and reward after more than 1600 procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About