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
Comparative Study
. 2020 Aug;272(2):326-333.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003279.

Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy: Patient Selection and Short-term Outcome of 47,101 Primary Operations From the Swedish, Norwegian, and Dutch National Quality Registries

Youri Q M Poelemeijer  1   2 , Ronald S L Liem  3   4 , Villy Våge  5 , Tom Mala  6 , Magnus Sundbom  7 , Johan Ottosson  8 , Simon W Nienhuijs  9
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy: Patient Selection and Short-term Outcome of 47,101 Primary Operations From the Swedish, Norwegian, and Dutch National Quality Registries

Youri Q M Poelemeijer et al. Ann Surg. 2020 Aug.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the use and short-term outcome of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands.

Background: Although bariatric surgery is performed in high volumes worldwide, no consensus exists regarding the choice of bariatric procedure for specific groups of patients.

Methods: Data from 3 national registries for bariatric surgery were used. Patient selection, perioperative data (severe complications, mortality, and rate of readmissions within 30 days), and 1-year results (follow-up rate and weight loss) were studied.

Results: A total of 47,101 primary operations were registered, 33,029 (70.1%) RYGB and 14,072 (29.9%) SG. Patients receiving RYGB met international guidelines for having bariatric surgery more often than those receiving SG (91.9% vs 83,0%, P < 0.001). The 2 procedures did not differ in the rate of severe complications (2.6% vs 2.4%, P = 0.382), nor 30-day mortality (0.04% vs 0.03%, P = 0.821). Readmission rates were higher after RYGB (4.3% vs 3.4%, P < 0.001).One-year post surgery, less RYGB-patients were lost-to follow-up (12.1% vs 16.5%, P < 0.001) and RYGB resulted in a higher rate of patients with total weight loss of more than 20% (95.8% vs 84.6%, P < 0.001). While the weight-loss after RYGB was similar between hospitals, there was a great variation in weight loss after SG.

Conclusion: This study reflects the pragmatic use and short-term outcome of RYGB and SG in 3 countries in North-Western Europe. Both procedures were safe, with RYGB having higher weight loss and follow-up rates at the cost of a slightly higher 30-day readmission rate.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Van Leersum NJ, Snijders HS, Henneman D, et al. The Dutch surgical colorectal audit. Eur J Surg Oncol 2013; 39:1063–1070.
    1. Hopkins JC, Howes N, Chalmers K, et al. Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery: an in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set, the BARIACT Study. Obes Rev 2015; 16:88–106.
    1. Hedenbro JL, Naslund E, Boman L, et al. Formation of the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry, SOReg. Obes Surg 2015; 25:1893–1900.
    1. Coulman KD, Abdelrahman T, Owen-Smith A, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in bariatric surgery: a systematic review of standards of reporting. Obes Rev 2013; 14:707–720.
    1. Brethauer SA, Kim J, el Chaar M, et al. Standardized outcomes reporting in metabolic and bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2015; 11:489–506.

MeSH terms