Comparative effectiveness and safety of gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy and adjustable gastric banding in a population-based bariatric program: prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery in Canada is primarily delivered within publicly funded specialty clinics. Previous studies have demonstrated that bariatric surgery is superior to intensive medical management for reduction of weight and obesity-related comorbidities. Our objective was to compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in a publicly funded, population-based bariatric treatment program. METHODS: We followed consecutive bariatric surgery patients for 2 years. The primary outcome was weight change (in kilograms). Between-group changes were analyzed using multivariable regression. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used for missing data. RESULTS: We included 150 consecutive patients (51 RYGB; 51 LSG; 48 LAGB) in our study. At baseline, mean age was 43.5 ± 9.5 years, 87.3% of patients were women, and preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 46.2 ± 7.4. Absolute and relative (% of baseline) weight loss at 2 years were 36.6 ± 19.5 kg (26.1 ± 12.2%) for RYGB, 21.4 ± 16.0 kg (16.4 ± 11.6%) for LSG and 7.0 ± 9.7 kg (5.8 ± 7.9%) for LAGB (p < 0.001). Change in BMI was greater for the RYGB (-13.0 ± 6.6) than both the LSG (-7.6 ± 5.7) and the LAGB (-2.6 ± 3.5) groups (p < 0.001). The reduction in diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia was greater after RYGB than after LAGB (all p < 0.05). There were no deaths. The anastomotic and staple leakage rate was 1.3%. CONCLUSION: In a publicly funded, population-based bariatric surgery program, RYGB and LSG demonstrated greater weight loss than the LAGB procedure. Bypass resulted in the greatest reduction in obesity-related comorbidities. All procedures were safe.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".