Journal of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery

Indexed in /covered by CAS, KoreaScience & DOI/Crossref:eISSN 2508-5956   pISSN 2287-2930

Table. 1.

Table. 1.

Efficacy of laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass

Author (year of publication)Study designSample sizeFollow up years (%)Mean age% patients with T2DMPre-op BMIPost op BMIEWL/EBMILWL, remarks
Lee et al. (2005) [13]Prospective RCT (RYGB vs MGB)402 (100%)30.7±8.455% metabolic syndrome44.8±8.828.7 (1 year) 28.3 (2 years)64.9% EWL (1 year) 64.4% EWL (2 years)100% resolution of metabolic syndrome
Wang et al. (2005) [15]Retrospective cohort4233 (13.8% at 1 year, 7.3% at 2 years)30.8±9.318.7%44.2±7.029.2 (1 year) 28.4 (2 years) 28.8 (3 years)69% (1 year) 72% (2 years) 71% (3 years)T2DM remission 100%
Rutledge and Walsh (2005) [12]Retrospective Cohort study2,4105 (68%)3983%46±729 (12 months)80% (1 year)59 kg (1 year)
Carbajo et al. (2005) [16]Retrospective cohort2092 years (NA)41NA48NA75% EWL (1 year) 80% EWL (18 months)No comments on resolution of T2DM
Peraglie (2008) [17]Retrospective Cohort study (super super obese)162 (12.5%)40NA62.4NA57% (1 year) 65% (2 years)63 kg (1 year) 72 kg (2 years) T2DM remission not reported
Piazza et al. (2011) [18]Retrospective cohort1972 (96%)37.9NA52.939.4 (1 year) 30.3 (2 years) 28.3 (3 years)65% EWL (1 year) 80% EWL (2 years)T2DM remission 90%
Noun et al. (2012) [19]Retrospective cohort1,0005 (70%)33.2±10.219%42.5±6.328.4 (60 months)72.5% EWL (18 months) 68.6% EWL (60 months)32.85% TWL (60 months)
Lee et al. (2012) [20]Retrospective cohort study (compare to RYGB)1,1635.6 (56%)32.3±9.149.3% metabolic syndrome41±6.127.7 (5 years)72.9% EWL (5 years)>80% resolution of metabolic syndrome
Milone et al. (2013) [21]Retrospective cohort (compared SG vs MGB)161 (100%)39.3100%45.8±5.0NABMI −24.2 (1 year)T2DM remission 87.5% (1 year)
Musella et al. (2014) [22]Retrospective cohort9745 (84%)39.422.9%48±4.5828 (60 months)70% EWL (1 year) 77% EWL (5 years)T2DM Remission 84.4%
Kular et al. (2014) [23]Retrospective cohort (Indian subcontinent)1,0546 (84%)38.4±9.664%43.2±7.426.2 (1 year) 25.8 (3 years) 26.2 (6 years)85% EWL (1 year) 88% EWL (3 years) 85% EWL (6 years)T2DM Remission 93.2%
Disse et al. (2014) [24]Matched retrospective cohort (compared OLB to RYGB)201 year (100%)49.540%40.128.8 (6 months) 32.3 (12 months)76.3% EBMIL (6 months) 89.0% EBMIL (1 year)T2DM Remission 62.5% at 6 months
Bruzzi et al. (2015) [25]Retrospective cohort1755 year (72%)50±1022%47±831±671.5 %EBMIL44 kg (5 years) T2DM Remission 82% at 5 years
Guenzi et al. (2015) [26]Retrospective cohort80426 months (NA)49±1112.4%47±93576% (3 years)T2DM 88% complete remission at 2 years
Peraglie (2016) [27]Retrospective cohort (age >60)886 (42%)6445%4367% (1 year) 70% (2 years) 72% (6 years)T2DM Remission 84%
Jammu and Sharma (2016) [28]Retrospective cohort (compare MGB/SG/ RYGB)47353.5 months (52%)46.575.9%56.5-92.2% EWLT2DM remission 95.1%. EWL% and resolution of comorbidities better in MGB.
Kansou et al. (2016) [29]Retrospective cohort (compared MGB to sleeve)1611 year (88.4%)41.2±11.319.9%42.8±5.026.3 (1 year)79.3% EWL (1 year)TWL 38.2±8.4% (1 year), T2DM remission 92.6%. LMGB better TWL than sleeve
Plamper et al. (2016) [30]Retrospective cohort (compared MGB with sleeve in super obese)1691 year (90.8%)43.2±11.141.4%54.1±6.634.9±4.8 (1 year)66.2% EWL (1 year)%EWL better in MGB than sleeve
9,392
J Metab Bariatr Surg 2016;5:45-52 https://doi.org/10.17476/jmbs.2016.5.2.45
© 2016 J Metab Bariatr Surg