Bariatric Surgery and Endoluminal Procedures: IFSO Worldwide Survey 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Several bariatric surgery worldwide surveys have been previously published to illustrate the evolution of bariatric surgery in the last decades. The aim of this survey is to report an updated overview of all bariatric procedures performed in 2014.For the first time, a special section on endoluminal techniques was added. METHODS: The 2014 International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) survey form evaluating the number and the type of surgical and endoluminal bariatric procedures was emailed to all IFSO societies. Trend analyses from 2011 to 2014 were also performed. RESULTS: There were 56/60 (93.3%) responders. The total number of bariatric/metabolic procedures performed in 2014 consisted of 579,517 (97.6%) surgical operations and 14,725 (2.4%) endoluminal procedures. The most commonly performed procedure in the world was sleeve gastrectomy (SG) that reached 45.9%, followed by Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (39.6%), and adjustable gastric banding (AGB) (7.4%). The annual percentage changes from 2013 revealed the increase of SG and decrease of RYGB in all the IFSO regions (USA/Canada, Europe, and Asia/Pacific) with the exception of Latin/South America, where SG decreased and RYGB represented the most frequent procedure. CONCLUSIONS: There was a further increase in the total number of bariatric/metabolic procedures in 2014 and SG is currently the most frequent surgical procedure in the world. This is the first survey that describes the endoluminal procedures, but the accuracy of provided data should be hopefully improved in the next future. We encourage the creation of further national registries and their continuous updates taking into account all new bariatric procedures including the endoscopic procedures that will obtain increasing importance in the near future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".