Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: With or without Duodenal Switch? A Consecutive Series of 800 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) was originally performed as the restrictive and acid-reducing part of a biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS). It is now recognized as a stand-alone procedure, but direct comparison between the two procedures is still lacking. The goal of this study is to compare the outcomes of the two procedures and their respective impact on obesity-related comorbidities. METHODS: All patients who had a laparoscopic SG (n = 378) or a laparoscopic BPD-DS (n = 422) before 10/2011 were included in this study (n = 800). Data were obtained from our prospectively maintained electronic database and are reported as mean ± standard deviation comparing SG with BPD-DS patients. RESULTS: SG patients were older (48 ± 11 vs. 40 ± 10 years, p < 0.001) with a higher prevalence of comorbidities (type 2 diabetes mellitus in 51 vs. 37%; hypertension 62 vs. 49%; sleep apnea 63 vs. 51%; all p < 0.001). Initial BMI was 48 ± 9 vs. 48 ± 6 (p = 0.8). There was one 30-day mortality in the BPD-DS group, from a pulmonary embolism, for an overall mortality rate of 0.13%. Thirty-day complications occurred in 6 vs. 8% of patients (p = 0.2), including gastric leaks in 4 (1%) vs. 0 patients (p = 0.049). Mean follow-up was 29 ± 10 months. Excess weight loss was 45 ± 14 vs. 62 ± 15% at 6 months, 53 ± 18 vs. 81 ± 14% at 12 months, 53 ± 23 vs. 87 ± 15% at 18 months, 50 ± 19 vs. 86 ± 15% at 24 months and 51 ± 24 vs. 83 ± 16% at 36 months (p < 0.05 for all time points). The surgery induced the remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus in 56 vs. 90% of patients, hypertension in 54 vs. 76% and sleep apnea in 43 vs. 74% (all p < 0.05). In type 2 diabetic patients, fasting plasma glucose decreased by -1.9 mmol/l after SG vs. -2.9 mmol/l after BPD-DS (p < 0.05) and hemoglobin A1C by -1.1 vs. -1.9% (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: SG results in a significant 3-year weight loss and remission of comorbidities. BPD-DS provides further improvement of associated comorbidities and can be an option for the management of insufficient weight loss or residual comorbidities following SG.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".