Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Update on comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis of weight loss, comorbidities, and quality of life at 5 years

BMC Surgery volume 24, Article number: 219 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) and Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) are the two most commonly performed bariatric surgeries for the treatment of obesity. This meta-analysis was performed with the aim of summarizing the available evidence on weight loss, remission of comorbidities, and quality of life in LRYGB and LSG, complementing the current literature.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from January 2012 to June 2023 for randomized controlled trials and non-randomized interventional studies. We finally selected 18 eligible studies.

Results

LRYGB resulted in greater weight loss compared with LSG at 5 years [WMD= -7.65 kg/m², 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.54 to -3.76, P = 0.0001], but there exists high heterogeneity with I²=84%. Resolution rate of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) (OR = 0.60, 95%Cl 0.41–0.87, p = 0.007) and dyslipidemia (OR = 0.44, 95%Cl 0.23–0.84, p = 0.01) was higher in the LRYGB group than that in the LSG group at 5 years. There was no difference between LRYGB and LSG for remission of hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea. No differences were observed in the QoL after LRYGB or LSG. Morbidity was lower in the LSG group (WMD = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.13, -0.02, P = 0.01) than in the LRYGB group. No statistically significant difference was found in mortality between the two procedures.

Conclusion

At 5 years after surgery, LRYGB resulted in greater weight loss and achieved better remission rate of T2D and dyslipidemia than LSG. However, LSG has a lower morbidity rate than that of LRYGB.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Obesity has become a global health issue, with nearly a third of the world’s population now with obesity [1]. Obesity is capable of causing serious comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease [2], type 2 diabetes [3], and various cancers [4]. There are multiple forms of obesity treatment, including dietary therapy, medications therapy and bariatric surgery [5]. However, long-term results have shown that bariatric surgery is the most effective management for obesity [6]. Bariatric surgery results in massive weight loss in a short period of time, and also leads to comorbidity remission, mortality decline and quality of life improvement [7].

LSG and LRYGB are the most recommended bariatric surgeries [8]. However, there is heated debate on the subject of which the two surgeries is more effective. LRYGB as a bariatric surgery was first described by Alan Wittgrove in 1994 [9]. Nowadays, as LRYGB is exceptionally effective at alleviating obesity-related medical conditions - including type 2 diabetes (T2D) it is one of the most widely adopted bariatric procedure and is known as one of the gold standard surgeries for people with obesity. While LSG is the most frequently performed bariatric surgery and becoming increasingly popular for people with obesity, some studies indicate that LRYGB will result in greater weight loss than LSG [10, 11], while others show that LSG is safer than LRYGB [12, 13] .

In recent years, many long-term follow up studies have been conducted on patients that underwent LSG and LRYGB. Given that long term results are not clear until 5 years post procedure, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to update the comparison of LSG and LRYGB on weight loss, comorbidities remission and quality of life at 5 years after surgery.

Methods

The study protocol was written and registered on Prospero (CRD42023433754) before data extraction.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria are as follows: (1) Patients included in the studies were older than 18 years and had severe obesity (BMI > 40 kg/m2 or > 35 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities); (2) Human studies reported in English; (3) At least one of the following endpoints was required: weight loss (expressed as %EWL), resolution rate of comorbidities (T2DM, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea), and quality of life; (4) Comparative studies between LRYGB and LSG.

Exclusion criteria are as follows: (1) non-human studies; (2) non-laparoscopic surgery; (3) studies that did not compare LRYGB with LSG; (4) case series and reports, reviews, letters, and editorials.

Outcomes assessed

The primary outcome was weight loss at 5 years after bariatric surgery. Secondary outcomes were: (1) remission of comorbidities including T2D, hypertension, dyslipidemia and obstructive sleep apnea at 5 years after surgery. Studies that clearly defined the criteria for comorbidities remission were included in the comorbidities analysis. Specifically, T2D remission was defined as HbA1c < 6.5%, reduction or discontinuation of therapy. Hypertension was defined as decrease of blood pressure under same medication, reduction or discontinuation of therapy. The remission of dyslipidemia and obstructive sleep apnea was defined as reduction or discontinuation of therapy. 2). Quality of life changed 5 years after surgery, which was measured by gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI) at 5 years. 3). morbidity and mortality after surgery.

Search strategy

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library covering January 2012 to June 2023. The search strategy included key words such as ‘‘gastric bypass”, “Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass”, “LRYGB”, “GB”, and “sleeve gastrectomy’’, “LSG”, “SG”. Two assessors independently screened the titles and abstracts of each study. When a relevant study was identified, the full text was obtained for further evaluation.

Data abstraction

Two reviewers independently screened the searched titles, abstracts, and full texts after the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers. The data extracted from each study included study characteristics (author, country, year of publication, study type), patient demographics (average age, %female, sample size, average pre-surgery weight and post-surgery weight), type of bariatric surgery, and outcomes. Disputes that occurred at the title and abstract screening stages were resolved by a third reviewer. Discrepancies that arose at the full-text or data abstraction stage were resolved through consensus discussions between the reviewers, or if necessary, a third reviewer was consulted to adjudicate disagreements.

Quality assessment

The methodological quality of the included non-randomized controlled trial studies was determined using the NOS (Newcastle–Ottawa Scale) [14] and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) [15]. Each article was evaluated in the following three aspects: object selection, inter-group comparability, and outcome measurement. Articles with scores < 6 were considered low-quality articles. The methodological quality of the included randomized controlled trial (RCT) was determined using Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for risk of bias [16]. The risk of bias in RCTs is categorized as low risk, unclear risk, and high risk. Disagreements between reviewers regarding the quality of included studies were resolved through consensus or by involving a third reviewer.

Statistical analysis

Weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to analyze continuous data, while odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were used for the statistical analyses of dichotomous data. OR was calculated by the ratio of the number of remissions in the LSG group to the number of non-exposed people in the LSG group divided by the ratio of the number of remissions in the LRYGB group to the number of non-exposed people in the LRYGB group. Heterogeneity was represented by I² (low heterogeneity at values < 30%, moderate heterogeneity at values 30–50%, and high heterogeneity at values > 50%). The random-effects model was used for the analysis of studies with high heterogeneity, and the fixed effects model was used for studies with low or moderate heterogeneity. In addition, sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of included studies on the combined results for outcomes with significant heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated visually by creating funnel plots and Begg’s test was conducted on outcomes which included more than 10 studies. All statistical analysis and meta-analysis were performed on RevMan version 5.2 (The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) and Stata 17.0 version (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Study characteristics

The flow diagram of our literature search is shown in Fig. 1. A total of 2061 articles were identified from the database, of which 556 studies were excluded after duplication, text screening, and discussion. 18 articles were included in our analysis; 8 of them are RCTs, 4 of them are prospective cohort studies, and 6 of them are retrospective cohort studies [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. A total of 1776 patients in the LSG group and 1679 patients in the LRYGB group were included in the studies. The collected studies were conducted between 2012 and June 2023 in 13 countries, including Finland, France, Switzerland, The USA, Spain, Sweden, New Zealand, China, Venezuela, Italy, The Netherlands, and Lebanon. The characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1. The methodological quality of the included non-RCT studies is shown in Table 2 and Fig. 2 and 3. The risk of bias for the RCTs is presented in Fig. 4.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of study selection

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table
Table 2 Quality of assessment of included studies measured by Newcastle–Ottawa scale
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias graph of non-RCT studies

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Risk of bias summary of non-RCT studies

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Risk of bias assessment using Cochrane Collaboration’s tool

Full size image

Primary outcome: percentage excess weight loss (%EWL)

Patients in the LRYGB group had significantly greater weight loss than patients in the LSG group by 7.67 kg/m² at 5 years (WMD=-7.67,95% CI -11.53 to -3.82, P < 0.00001; I²=84%; 1890 patients; 15 trials).

Subgroup analysis performed according to this study revealed that LRYGB resulted in more significant weight loss than LSG at 5 years in RCTs (WMD=-17.82,95% CI -28.25 to -7.38, P = 0.0008; I²=84%; 452 patients; 5 trials) (Fig. 5). The statistical heterogeneity was high (I²=84%, P < 0.0001), so the random-effects model was used. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis was conducted (Fig. 6). The heterogeneity was significantly reduced after excluding the three studies [17, 19, 20]. I² of 12 include studies and 3 RCTs were reduced from 84 to 59% and 84–0%, respectively (Fig. 7). Additionally, funnel plots and Begg’s test were performed to evaluate publication bias. A visual assessment of the funnel plot indicated the presence of slight publication bias (Fig. 8). However, Begg’s test was not statistically significant(p = 0.125) (Fig. 9). Another subgroup was performed by separating BMI into the 30–39 subgroup and the 40–49 subgroup. It showed no significant difference between LRYGB and LSG in the BMI 30–39 subgroup (WMD=-6.41, 95% CI -12.16- to -0.66, P = 0.24; I²=28%; 187 patients; 2 trials) and the 40–49 subgroup (WMD=-2.17, 95% CI -2.72- to -1.62, P = 0.05; I²=58%; 688 patients; 5 trials)(Fig. 10).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot of % EWL at 5 years

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Sensitivity analysis of %EWL

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

After excluding the three studies

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Funnel plot of %EWL at 5 years

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

Begg’s test of %EWL at 5 years

Full size image
Fig. 10
figure 10

A subgroup by separating BMI into 30–39 subgroup and 40–49 subgroup

Full size image
Fig. 11
figure 11

Sensitivity analysis of dyslipidemia

Full size image

Secondary outcomes

Obesity-related comorbidities remission

Type 2 diabetes

Of the 18 articles, the rate of remission for T2D was reported by 8 trials (n = 755). Our pooled analysis showed that LRYGB achieved a superior rate of resolution for T2D remission at 5 years (OR = 0.55, 95%Cl 0.39–0.80, p = 0.001, I²=0%,9 trials, n = 793). Subgroup analysis of RCT studies revealed that at 5 years, LRYGB had a significantly higher T2D remission rate (OR = 0.51, 95%Cl 0.32–0.82, p = 0.005, I²=0%, 5trials, n = 362).

Hypertension

The rate of remission for hypertension was reported by 9 trials (n = 755). There was no significant difference in the rate of remission for hypertension between LRYGB and LSG at 5 years (OR = 0.82, 95%Cl 0.58–1.15, p = 0.24, I²=25%, 9 trials, n = 755). In addition, pooling data from RCTs showed there was no significant difference in the rate of remission for hypertension between LRYGB and LSG (OR = 0.86, 95%Cl 0.56–1.33, p = 0.50, I²=36%, 5 trials, n = 409).

Dyslipidemia

The rate of remission for dyslipidemia was reported by 8 trials (n = 567), including RCTs and cohort studies. The results showed that LRYGB has better remission than LSG after surgery at 5 years (OR = 0.44, 95%Cl 0.23–0.84, p = 0.01, I²=52%, 8 trials, n = 567). The statistical heterogeneity was high (I²=52%, P = 0.04), so the random-effects model was used. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis was conducted (Fig. 11), which showed that LRYGB was superior to LSG for remission for dyslipidemia. However, it showed no significant difference after we exclusively pooled data from RCTs (OR = 0.54, 95%Cl 0.24–1.22, p = 0.14, I²=19%,4 trials, n = 238).

Fig. 12
figure 12

Quality of life at 5 years

Full size image
Fig. 13
figure 13

Sensitivity analysis of quality of life

Full size image

Obstructive sleep apnea

The rate of remission for obstructive sleep apnea was reported by 4 trials (n = 219). LRYGB is better than LSG in obstructive sleep apnea remission at 5 years (OR = 0.46, 95%Cl 0.21–0.98, p = 0.04, I²=0%,4 trials, n = 219).

Quality of life

There was no significant difference between the two types of surgeries after 5 years in quality of life, which was measured by the GIQLI [35] (RR=-1.59, 95% CI -6.18– 3.00, P = 0.50) (Fig. 12). The statistical heterogeneity was high (I²=59%, P = 0.09). Thus, a sensitivity analysis was conducted, which showed the rationality and reliability of our results. (Fig. 13)

Morbidity and Mortality

The results showed that the LSG group has a lower morbidity rate than the LRYGB group (WMD=-0.07, 95% CI: -0.13, -0.02, P = 0.01, I² = 80%, 13 studies, n = 2695) (Fig. 14). No statistically significant difference in mortality was found between the LSG and LRYGB groups.（Fig. 15)

Fig. 14
figure 14

Forest plot of morbidity

Full size image
Fig. 15
figure 15

Forest plot of mortality

Full size image

Discussion

Nowadays, obesity has become a global burden. The WHO released a report on obesity pandemic in Europe in May 2022, stating that 60% of citizens in Europe are with obesity [36]. The prevalence of obesity may be even higher in the future. A study from Wald et al. shows that the national prevalence of adult obesity and severe obesity will rise to 48.9% by 2030 in United States [37]. Bariatric surgery is an excellent strategy to treat obesity, as it results in long-term weight loss in people with severe obesity, improves metabolic syndrome and alleviates obesity-related diseases, and decreases future overall cancer incidence and mortality [38].

LRYGB and LSG are both commonly adopted bariatric surgery methods. Compared with LRYGB, LSG is much simpler in terms of technical complexity, with a significantly shorter operative time, and a notable reduction in major complications within 30 days postoperatively [39]. However, LSG may entail more risks compared to LRYGB, such as gastroesophageal reflux [40]and gastric stenosis [41]. While LRYGB is technically demanding [13], some studies have suggested that LRYGB is more effective for weight loss than LSG [10, 42].

In this study, we found that LRYGB exhibited better weight loss outcomes than LSG at 5 years after surgery. Some studies have explored the effects of LRYGB compared with LSG using %EWL, indicating that LRYGB tends to result in more substantial weight loss outcomes after 5 years during their follow-up [42, 43]. Our results are consistent with these findings. However, another meta-analysis by Zhao et al. indicated that both LRYGB and LSG are equivalent for excess weight loss, possibly due to the limited availability of long-term follow-up data, with only 3 studies providing data at 5 years [44]. In our analysis, we included a total of 15 studies with 1890 patients, which provided 5 years of follow-up data on percentage excess weight loss for patients who underwent LRYGB and LSG. Notably, our study included more patients with follow-up after 5 years than Zhao’s study. Furthermore, the results from 5 RCTs support our findings. We observed that the results exhibit high heterogeneity with I²=84%. The variation in baseline patient weights among the included studies may contribute to this heterogeneity. After conducting a subgroup analysis, we still find high heterogeneity with I²=84%. Therefore, we performed a sensitivity analysis and excluded the studies which lead to the most heterogeneity. The result still supports the primary result that LRYGB resulted in greater weight loss compared with LSG at 5 years. Nevertheless, it’s important to note that the long-term superiority of LRYGB over LSG remains uncertain. Some studies have suggested comparable weight loss outcomes between the two procedures at longer follow-up intervals, such as 7 or 10 years post-surgery [10, 11]. Therefore, while LRYGB may offer advantages in weight loss at 5 years, further research is needed to confirm its sustained efficacy beyond this timeframe. Additionally, we performed another subgroup analysis by separating BMI into the 30–39 subgroup and the 40–49 subgroup, which showed no significant difference between LRYGB and LSG in the two subgroups. However, the number of included articles in this subgroup is limited. Therefore, further research is needed to confirm which procedure is better according to different BMI.

In this study, we found that LRYGB is superior in T2D remission at 5 years after surgery. Our findings are consistent with recent studies, which indicate that LRYGB has better efficiency in T2D remission [42]. Our study increased sample size, which may reduce potential bias. Both procedures restrict caloric intake by reducing the size of the stomach, but LRYGB -by bypassing the duodenum - also causes changes in gastrointestinal hormones [45] and gut microbiota [46] that may enhance diabetes remission. Lee et al. conducted a meta-analysis which showed that there was no significant difference between LRYGB and LSG in T2D remission [47], However, only four studies and 351 patients were included in Lee’s study. In our study, we included a total of 793 patients and 9 studies - including 5 RCTs - when comparing LRYGB with LSG in T2D remission. Our results provide updated information on the impact of LRYGB and LSG on T2D remission. Further studies are still needed to explore the efficiency and long-term results of LRYGB and LSG.

We have found that the remission rate of dyslipidemia was significantly higher in LRYGB at 5 years after surgery. Our findings are consistent with recent studies, which indicated that LRYGB may be superior to LSG in dyslipidemia remission [48, 49]. Han’s study provided evidence that LRYGB was superior to LSG in dyslipidemia remission 3 years after bariatric surgery [48]. Li’s study showed that dyslipidemia was significantly more resolved in the LRYGB group than in the LSG group postoperatively, but they did not specify a particular time frame [49]. This could lead to potential bias, as the remission rate of dyslipidemia varies at different time points [48]. Our findings provide a long-term evaluation of the effectiveness of LRYGB and LSG in the treatment of dyslipidemia. Therefore, LRYGB is a reasonable choice for patients with dyslipidemia undergoing bariatric surgery.

We also found that there was no significant difference in hypertension at 5 years after surgery. Our result is consistent with an RCT conducted by Zhang [24]. However, a meta-analysis by Hu et al. showed that LRYGB exhibited a significantly superior long-term (> 5 years) prognosis for hypertension after surgery compared to LSG, including 4 studies with 322 patients [42]. The result is not consistent with our findings in this study. One possible explanation is that our study included 9 studies (4 cohort studies and 5 RCTs) with 755 patients, which is a larger sample size than previous studies. Further research is still needed on the alleviating effects of weight loss surgery on hypertension.

The findings showed that LRYGB is better than LSG in obstructive sleep apnea remission. One study indicated a trend towards improved resolution of obstructive sleep apnea with LSG at 12 months follow-up [50]. However, some studies showed that the two procedures have equal remission rates regarding obstructive sleep apnea, which is inconsistent with our study [51, 52]. Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy and long-term outcomes between the two procedures in obstructive sleep apnea.

Our research results show that there is no significant difference in the quality of life 5 years after surgery between LRYGB and LSG. These results are based on evaluations using the GIQLI questionnaire. Our findings are consistent with previous studies [42, 52], which also utilized the GIQLI and M-A-Q II (The Moorehead-Ardelt quality of life questionnaire II) for the evaluation of quality of life. However, Nickel’s research found that the total GIQLI score of LSG was significantly higher than that of LRYGB within six months after surgery [53]. Further analysis is still needed to explore the impact of different bariatric surgeries on quality of life.

In this study, the findings showed that LSG has a lower risk of morbidity than LRYGB. Our results were in accordance with other studies [11, 54]. In Fridman’s study, the morbidity rate was 24.0% in the LSG group, compared to 28.6% in the LRYGB group [11]. However, Zellmer’s study showed that LRYGB has a lower leak rate than LSG [55]. In Hutter’s study, it was shown that LSG has higher rates of organ space infection, renal insufficiency and sepsis than LRYGB [56]. In terms of mortality, our result showed no significant difference between the two procedures. Kumar’s study showed that LSG resulted in lower mortality than LRYGB [12]. However, Thereaux’s study showed that LRYGB has lower mortality than LSG [57] Further studies are still needed to explore the differences in morbidity and mortality rates between the two procedures (Fig. 15).

Two included studies reported the revision rates after LSG and LRYGB with varying results when compared to each other [29, 33]. In Soong’s study [33], 190 patients underwent LSG and 62 underwent LRYGB. Five patients (2.6%) required revisional surgery after LSG, while five patients (8.1%) required revisional surgery after LRYGB. In Calvo’s study [28], 165 patients underwent LSG and 164 underwent LRYGB, with 13 patients (8.0%) requiring revisional surgery after LSG and 6 patients (3.6%) after LRYGB. A large retrospective database study including 349,411 bariatric procedures reported a revision rate of 0.8% in 136,483 primary LSG patients and 0.21% in 111,595 primary LRYGB patients [56]. Benjamin Clapp conducted a retrospective study using the MBSAQIP database, reporting a revision rate of 4.63% in 330,437 LSG procedures and 8.21% in 132,759 LRYGB procedures [58]. Further studies are needed to compare the revision rates of LSG with those of LRYGB.

Our study had several limitations. First, although 18 studies were included in our study, only three studies compared the impact of LRYGB with LSG on obstructive sleep apnea remission and quality of life. The small sample size may have impacted the results. Second, the included studies varied in methodologies, patient populations, and follow-up rates. Particularly, the follow-up rates at 5 years and beyond varied significantly. This variation might increase the heterogeneity of this study. Third, the meta-analysis incorporated studies with varying methodologies, varying patient populations and different follow-up rates after 5 years, which may have contributed to substantial heterogeneity in the results. Differences in preoperative patient characteristics and postoperative management protocols across studies could have influenced the assessed outcomes, posing challenges in data synthesis and interpretation. Fourth, variations in patient demographics, such as age, gender distribution, baseline BMI, and presence of comorbidities, among the included studies, may have introduced bias. Additionally, the meta-analysis included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized interventional studies, which may have introduced selection bias and confounded the results. Non-randomized studies are prone to inherent methodological limitations, such as allocation bias and lack of control for potential confounders, which could compromise the validity and reliability of the findings. Fifth, dichotomous data used to evaluate resolution of T2D may influence the results. Additionally, some studies use the criteria of medication requirement to evaluate T2D remission, while others use values of HbA1c with different cutoffs. The different definition of T2D remission in studies may lead to potential bias.

Conclusions

LRYGB resulted in greater weight loss and achieved better remission in T2D and dyslipidemia when compared with LSG at 5 years after surgery, while LSG has a lower morbidity rate than that of LRYGB. However, more rigorous studies are needed to determine the relative long-term efficacy of different types of bariatric surgeries.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Chooi YC, Ding C, Magkos F. The epidemiology of obesity. Metabolism. 2019;92:6–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Powell-Wiley TM, Poirier P, Burke LE, Després JP, Gordon-Larsen P, Lavie CJ, Lear SA, Ndumele CE, Neeland IJ, Sanders P, et al. Obesity and Cardiovascular Disease: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2021;143(21):e984–1010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Carbone S, Del Buono MG, Ozemek C, Lavie CJ. Obesity, risk of diabetes and role of physical activity, exercise training and cardiorespiratory fitness. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2019;62(4):327–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Avgerinos KI, Spyrou N, Mantzoros CS, Dalamaga M. Obesity and cancer risk: emerging biological mechanisms and perspectives. Metabolism. 2019;92:121–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ruban A, Stoenchev K, Ashrafian H, Teare J. Current treatments for obesity. Clin Med (Lond). 2019;19(3):205–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Adams TD, Davidson LE, Litwin SE, Kolotkin RL, LaMonte MJ, Pendleton RC, Strong MB, Vinik R, Wanner NA, Hopkins PN, et al. Health benefits of gastric bypass surgery after 6 years. JAMA. 2012;308(11):1122–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Sjöström L, Lindroos AK, Peltonen M, Torgerson J, Bouchard C, Carlsson B, Dahlgren S, Larsson B, Narbro K, Sjöström CD, et al. Lifestyle, diabetes, and cardiovascular risk factors 10 years after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(26):2683–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Apaer S, Aizezi Z, Cao X, Wu J, Zhang Y, Tuersunmaimaiti A, Zhao J, Li T, Yang W, Tuxun T. Safety and Efficacy of LSG Versus LRYGB on patients with obesity: a systematic review and Meta-analysis from RCTs. Obes Surg. 2024;34(4):1138–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wittgrove AC, Clark GW, Tremblay LJ. Laparoscopic gastric bypass, Roux-en-Y: preliminary report of five cases. Obes Surg. 1994;4(4):353–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Salminen P, Grönroos S, Helmiö M, Hurme S, Juuti A, Juusela R, Peromaa-Haavisto P, Leivonen M, Nuutila P, Ovaska J. Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss, comorbidities, and Reflux at 10 years in adult patients with obesity: the SLEEVEPASS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg. 2022;157(8):656–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Grönroos S, Helmiö M, Juuti A, Tiusanen R, Hurme S, Löyttyniemi E, Ovaska J, Leivonen M, Peromaa-Haavisto P, Mäklin S, et al. Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss and quality of life at 7 years in patients with morbid obesity: the SLEEVEPASS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(2):137–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kumar SB, Hamilton BC, Wood SG, Rogers SJ, Carter JT, Lin MY. Is laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy safer than laparoscopic gastric bypass? A comparison of 30-day complications using the MBSAQIP data registry. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018;14(3):264–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Arafat M, Norain A, Burjonrappa S. Characterizing bariatric surgery utilization and complication rates in the Adolescent Population. J Pediatr Surg. 2019;54(2):288–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA. The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Casajoana A, Guerrero-Pérez F, de García R, Admella V, Sorribas M, Vidal-Alabró A, Virgili N, Urdiales RL, Montserrat M, Pérez-Maraver M, et al. Role of gastrointestinal hormones as a predictive factor for long-term diabetes remission: Randomized Trial comparing metabolic gastric bypass, Sleeve Gastrectomy, and Greater Curvature Plication. Obes Surg. 2021;31(4):1733–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ignat M, Vix M, Imad I, D’Urso A, Perretta S, Marescaux J, Mutter D. Randomized trial of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy in achieving excess weight loss. Br J Surg. 2017;104(3):248–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Laurenius A, Wallengren O, Alaraj A, Forslund HB, Thorell A, Wallenius V, Maleckas A. Resolution of diabetes, gastrointestinal symptoms, and self-reported dietary intake after gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized study. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2023;19(5):440–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Murphy R, Plank LD, Clarke MG, Evennett NJ, Tan J, Kim DDW, Cutfield R, Booth MWC. Effect of Banded Roux-en-Y gastric bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy on Diabetes Remission at 5 years among patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes: a Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(7):1503–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Peterli R, Wölnerhanssen BK, Peters T, Vetter D, Kröll D, Borbély Y, Schultes B, Beglinger C, Drewe J, Schiesser M, et al. Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss in patients with morbid obesity: the SM-BOSS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2018;319(3):255–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Salminen P, Helmiö M, Ovaska J, Juuti A, Leivonen M, Peromaa-Haavisto P, Hurme S, Soinio M, Nuutila P, Victorzon M. Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss at 5 years among patients with morbid obesity: the SLEEVEPASS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2018;319(3):241–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Schauer PR, Bhatt DL, Kirwan JP, Wolski K, Aminian A, Brethauer SA, Navaneethan SD, Singh RP, Pothier CE, Nissen SE, et al. Bariatric surgery versus Intensive Medical Therapy for diabetes – 5-Year outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(7):641–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang Y, Zhao H, Cao Z, Sun X, Zhang C, Cai W, Liu R, Hu S, Qin M. A randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy for the treatment of morbid obesity in China: a 5-year outcome. Obes Surg. 2014;24(10):1617–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dakour Aridi H, Khazen G, Safadi BY. Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy in a Lebanese Bariatric Surgical practice. Obes Surg. 2018;28(2):396–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee WJ, Pok EH, Almulaifi A, Tsou JJ, Ser KH, Lee YC. Medium-term results of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a Matched comparison with gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2015;25(8):1431–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Leyba JL, Llopis SN, Aulestia SN. Laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for the treatment of morbid obesity. A prospective study with 5 years of follow-up. Obes Surg. 2014;24(12):2094–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Calvo B, Gracia JA, Bielsa MA, Martínez M. Metabolic effects and outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass: a cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(12):5550–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dogan K, Gadiot RP, Aarts EO, Betzel B, van Laarhoven CJ, Biter LU, Mannaerts GH, Aufenacker TJ, Janssen IM, Berends FJ. Effectiveness and safety of Sleeve Gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and adjustable gastric banding in morbidly obese patients: a Multicenter, Retrospective, Matched Cohort Study. Obes Surg. 2015;25(7):1110–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Belluzzi A, Hage K, Abi Mosleh K, Mundi MS, Abu Dayyeh B, Ghanem OM. Long-term safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery in septuagenarians. Obes Surg. 2023;33(12):3778–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Perrone F, Bianciardi E, Benavoli D, Tognoni V, Niolu C, Siracusano A, Gaspari AL, Gentileschi P. Gender influence on long-term weight loss and Comorbidities after laparoscopic sleeve Gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a prospective study with a 5-Year follow-up. Obes Surg. 2016;26(2):276–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Castro MJ, Jimenez JM, Carbajo MA, Lopez M, Cao MJ, Garcia S, Ruiz-Tovar J. Long-term weight loss results, remission of Comorbidities and Nutritional deficiencies of sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-En-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) on type 2 Diabetic (T2D) patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(20).

  33. Soong TC, Lee MH, Lee WJ, Almalki OM, Chen JC, Wu CC, Chen SC. Long-term efficacy of bariatric surgery for the treatment of Super-obesity: comparison of SG, RYGB, and OAGB. Obes Surg. 2021;31(8):3391–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Level L, Rodríguez G, Piñango S, Avariano Y. Laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: a 5-Year Follow-Up prospective study of 200 cases. SN Compr Clin Med. 2021;3(10):2180–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Eypasch E, Williams JI, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ure BM, Schmülling C, Neugebauer E, Troidl H. Gastrointestinal quality of Life Index: development, validation and application of a new instrument. Br J Surg. 1995;82(2):216–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Boutari C, Mantzoros CS. A 2022 update on the epidemiology of obesity and a call to action: as its twin COVID-19 pandemic appears to be receding, the obesity and dysmetabolism pandemic continues to rage on. Metabolism. 2022;133:155217.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Ward ZJ, Bleich SN, Cradock AL, Barrett JL, Giles CM, Flax C, Long MW, Gortmaker SL. Projected U.S. State-Level prevalence of adult obesity and severe obesity. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(25):2440–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wilson RB, Lathigara D, Kaushal D. Systematic review and Meta-analysis of the impact of bariatric surgery on Future Cancer Risk. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(7).

  39. Osland E, Yunus RM, Khan S, Alodat T, Memon B, Memon MA. Postoperative early major and minor complications in Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) Versus Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) procedures: a Meta-analysis and systematic review. Obes Surg. 2016;26(10):2273–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Climaco K, Ahnfeldt E. Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy. Surg Clin North Am. 2021;101(2):177–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Woźniewska P, Diemieszczyk I, Hady HR. Complications associated with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy - a review. Prz Gastroenterol. 2021;16(1):5–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Hu Z, Sun J, Li R, Wang Z, Ding H, Zhu T, Wang G. A Comprehensive comparison of LRYGB and LSG in obese patients including the effects on QoL, Comorbidities, Weight loss, and complications: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2020;30(3):819–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gu L, Huang X, Li S, Mao D, Shen Z, Khadaroo PA, Ng DM, Chen P. A meta-analysis of the medium- and long-term effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. BMC Surg. 2020;20(1):30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhao K, Liu J, Wang M, Yang H, Wu A. Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2020;26(1):290–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Arakawa R, Febres G, Cheng B, Krikhely A, Bessler M, Korner J. Prospective study of gut hormone and metabolic changes after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(7):e0236133.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Davies N, O’Sullivan JM, Plank LD, Murphy R. Gut microbial predictors of type 2 diabetes remission following bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2020;30(9):3536–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lee Y, Doumouras AG, Yu J, Aditya I, Gmora S, Anvari M, Hong D. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of weight loss, comorbidities, and biochemical outcomes from randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2021;273(1):66–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Han Y, Jia Y, Wang H, Cao L, Zhao Y. Comparative analysis of weight loss and resolution of comorbidities between laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on 18 studies. Int J Surg. 2020;76:101–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Li J, Lai D, Wu D. Laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy to treat morbid obesity-related comorbidities: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2016;26(2):429–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Al-Rubaye H, McGlone ER, Farzaneh B, Mustafa L, Johnson M, Kayal A, English C-L, Kaur V, Kalendran M, Reddy M, et al. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy for obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Laparosc Endoscopic Robotic Surg. 2019;2(3):53–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Alghamdi S, Mirghani H, Alhazmi K, Alatawi AM, Brnawi H, Alrasheed T, Badoghaish W. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy effects on obesity comorbidities: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Surg. 2022;9:953804.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Wölnerhanssen BK, Peterli R, Hurme S, Bueter M, Helmiö M, Juuti A, Meyer-Gerspach AC, Slawik M, Peromaa-Haavisto P, Nuutila P, et al. Laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: 5-year outcomes of merged data from two randomized clinical trials (SLEEVEPASS and SM-BOSS). Br J Surg. 2021;108(1):49–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Nickel F, Schmidt L, Bruckner T, Billeter AT, Kenngott HG, Müller-Stich BP, Fischer L. Gastrointestinal quality of Life improves significantly after Sleeve Gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric Bypass-a prospective cross-sectional study within a 2-Year follow-up. Obes Surg. 2017;27(5):1292–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Fridman A, Moon R, Cozacov Y, Ampudia C, Lo Menzo E, Szomstein S, Rosenthal RJ. Procedure-related morbidity in bariatric surgery: a retrospective short- and mid-term follow-up of a single institution of the American College of Surgeons Bariatric Surgery Centers of Excellence. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(4):614–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Zellmer JD, Mathiason MA, Kallies KJ, Kothari SN. Is laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy a lower risk bariatric procedure compared with laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass? A meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2014;208(6):903–10. discussion 909–910.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hutter MM, Schirmer BD, Jones DB, Ko CY, Cohen ME, Merkow RP, Nguyen NT. First report from the American College of Surgeons Bariatric Surgery Center Network: laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has morbidity and effectiveness positioned between the band and the bypass. Ann Surg. 2011;254(3):410–20. discussion 420 – 412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Thereaux J, Lesuffleur T, Czernichow S, Basdevant A, Msika S, Nocca D, Millat B, Fagot-Campagna A. Long-term adverse events after sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass: a 7-year nationwide, observational, population-based, cohort study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7(10):786–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30191-3. Epub 2019 Aug 2. PMID: 31383618.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Clapp B, Harper B, Dodoo C, Klingsporn W, Barrientes A, Cutshall M, Tyroch A. Trends in revisional bariatric surgery using the MBSAQIP database 2015–2017. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020;16(7):908–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to thank Dr. Michael Hillel Kleinman from Surgical Associates of Houston, Texas. Dr. Michael Hillel Kleinman helped Dr. Yunhong Tian dedicate work to the surgical practice and research in Gastrointestinal & hernia Surgery.

Funding

This work was supported by the Bureau of Science & Technology Nanchong City [22JCYJPT0007], and Soft Science Research Project of Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province [2023JDR0209].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, The Affiliated Nanchong Central Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College(University), Nanchong, 637000, Sichuan, China

    Yu Lei, Xiyan Lei, Guobiao Chen, Zhenhong Wang, Honghua Song, Xingtong Feng, Yanzhi Wu & Yunhong Tian

  2. Clinical Research Group, Grade 2020 in Department of Clinical Medicine, North Sichuan Medical College(University), Nanchong, 637000, Sichuan, China

    Yu Lei, Honghua Song & Yanzhi Wu

  3. Clinical Research Group, Grade 2021 in Department of Clinical Medicine, North Sichuan Medical College(University), Nanchong, 637000, Sichuan, China

    Xiyan Lei & Xingtong Feng

  4. School of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Victor Jia

  5. Department of Radiology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA

    Jiani Hu

Authors
  1. Yu Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiyan Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guobiao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhenhong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Honghua Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xingtong Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yanzhi Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Victor Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jiani Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yunhong Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YT, YL, and XL have made substantial contributions to the design of the work. ZW, HS and GC interpreted the patients’ data. YL, ZW, XF and YW were major contributors in writing the manuscript. VJ, YT, and JH have drafted the work or substantively revised it. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yunhong Tian.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

For this type of review, institutional ethical approval was not required.

Consent for publication

The manuscript has been reviewed and approved for publication by all the co-authors. As this article is a systematic review, the statement of consent and the statement for human and animal rights are not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Supplementary Material 3

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lei, Y., Lei, X., Chen, G. et al. Update on comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis of weight loss, comorbidities, and quality of life at 5 years. BMC Surg 24, 219 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02512-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02512-1

Keywords

BMC Surgery

ISSN: 1471-2482

Contact us