Comparison of safety and effectiveness between laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass is a newly emerged surgical procedure in recent years. Owe to safe and simple process and effective outcomes, laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass has quickly become one of the most popular procedures in some countries. The safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy remain unclear. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library from inception to May 20, 2017. The methodological quality of Randomized Controlled Trials and non-Randomized Controlled Trials were, respectively, assessed by Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: Patients receiving mini-gastric bypass had a lot of advantageous indexes than patients receiving sleeve gastrectomy, such as higher 1-year EWL% (excess weight loss), higher 5-year EWL%, higher T2DM remission rate, higher hypertension remission rate, higher obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) remission rate, lower osteoarthritis remission rate, lower leakage rate, lower overall late complications rate, higher ulcer rate, lower gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) rate, shorter hospital stay and lower revision rate. No significant statistical difference was observed on overall early complications rate, bleed rate, vomiting rate, anemia rate, and operation time between mini-gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy. CONCLUSION: Mini-gastric bypass is a simpler, safer, and more effective bariatric procedure than laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Due to the biased data, small sample size and short follow-up time, our results may be unreliable. Large sample and multicenter RCT is needed to compare the effectiveness and safety between mini-gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy. Future study should also focus on bile reflux, remnant gastric cancer, and long term effectiveness of mini-gastric bypass.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".