Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 Nov;258(5):690-4; discussion 695.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a67426.

Early results of the Swiss Multicentre Bypass or Sleeve Study (SM-BOSS): a prospective randomized trial comparing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Early results of the Swiss Multicentre Bypass or Sleeve Study (SM-BOSS): a prospective randomized trial comparing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Ralph Peterli et al. Ann Surg. 2013 Nov.
Free PMC article

Abstract

Objective: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been proposed as an effective alternative to the current standard procedure, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Prospective data comparing both procedures are rare. Therefore, we performed a randomized clinical trial assessing the effectiveness and safety of these 2 operative techniques.

Methods: Two hundred seventeen patients were randomized at 4 bariatric centers in Switzerland. One hundred seven patients underwent LSG using a 35-F bougie with suturing of the stapler line, and 110 patients underwent LRYGB with a 150-cm antecolic alimentary and a 50-cm biliopancreatic limb. The mean body mass index of all patients was 44 ± 11.1 kg/m, the mean age was 43 ± 5.3 years, and 72% were female.

Results: The 2 groups were similar in terms of body mass index, age, sex, comorbidities, and eating behavior. The mean operative time was less for LSG than for LRYGB (87 ± 52.3 minutes vs 108 ± 42.3 minutes; P = 0.003). The conversion rate was 0.9% in both groups. Complications (<30 days) occurred more often in LRYGB than in LSG (17.2% vs 8.4%; P = 0.067). However, the difference in severe complications did not reach statistical significance (4.5% for LRYGB vs 1% for LSG; P = 0.21). Excessive body mass index loss 1 year after the operation was similar between the 2 groups (72.3% ± 22% for LSG and 76.6% ± 21% for LRYGB; P = 0.2). Except for gastroesophageal reflux disease, which showed a higher resolution rate after LRYGB, the comorbidities and quality of life were significantly improved after both procedures.

Conclusions: LSG was associated with shorter operation time and a trend toward fewer complications than with LRYGB. Both procedures were almost equally efficient regarding weight loss, improvement of comorbidities, and quality of life 1 year after surgery. Long-term follow-up data are needed to confirm these facts.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.
A, Change in BMI (means ± standard error). B, EBMIL (means).
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.
Reduction in comorbidity 1 year after surgery. No significant difference in cure or improvement of comorbidities between LSG and LRYGB except for GERD (*P = 0.008). GERD indicates gastro esophageal reflux disease; OSAS, obstructive sleep apnea syndrome; T2DM, type 2 diabetes.

References

    1. Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E, et al. Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;292:1724–1737 - PubMed
    1. Schauer PR, Kashyap SR, Wolski K, et al. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy in obese patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1567–1576 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sjostrom L, Lindroos AK, Peltonen M, et al. Lifestyle, diabetes, and cardiovascular risk factors 10 years after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2683–2693 - PubMed
    1. Mingrone G, Panunzi S, De Gaetano A, et al. Bariatric surgery versus conventional medical therapy for type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1577–1585 - PubMed
    1. Flum DR, Belle SH, King WC, et al. Perioperative safety in the longitudinal assessment of bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:445–454 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types