Your activity: 82 p.v.
your limit has been reached. plz Donate us to allow your ip full access, Email:

Bariatric procedures for the management of severe obesity: Descriptions

Bariatric procedures for the management of severe obesity: Descriptions
Robert B Lim, MD, FACS, FASMBS
Section Editor:
Daniel Jones, MD
Deputy Editor:
Wenliang Chen, MD, PhD
Literature review current through: Dec 2022. | This topic last updated: Aug 17, 2022.

INTRODUCTION — Operations for weight loss include a combination of volume-restrictive, intestinal hormone alteration, and nutrient-malabsorptive procedures that affect satiety, absorption, and insulin sensitivity in conjunction with behavior modification to achieve and sustain weight loss.

A consultation with a multidisciplinary bariatric team provides extensive education on nutrition, good psychological responses, and lifestyle modification needed for a patient to be successful with a surgical weight loss procedure. Proper bariatric care also includes lifelong surveillance. A reliable bariatric program will provide a comprehensive information session for potential surgical candidates that will detail realistic outcomes from weight loss surgery, including morbidities and mortalities [1].

This topic will review the contemporary, investigational, revisional, and obsolete bariatric procedures offered to patients with a surgical indication. The indications are a body mass index (BMI) of greater than or equal to 40 kg/m2, a BMI of 35 to 39.9 kg/m2 with an obesity-related comorbidity (eg, diabetes, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, osteoarthritis, among many others), or a BMI of >30 kg/m2 with difficult-to-control type II diabetes mellitus or dysmetabolic syndrome X.

Indications, preoperative preparation, postoperative management, complications, and outcomes of bariatric surgical procedures are described in the following topics:

(See "Bariatric surgery: Postoperative and long-term management of the uncomplicated patient".)

(See "Bariatric operations: Early (fewer than 30 days) morbidity and mortality".)

PREVALENCE — Bariatric surgery is one of the fastest-growing operative procedures performed worldwide, with an estimated >579,000 operations performed in 2014 [2]. In the United States, close to two million patients underwent bariatric surgery between 1993 and 2016, during which time the field has evolved from exclusively open surgery (gastric bypass or vertical banded gastroplasty) to 98 percent laparoscopic surgery (sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass) [3]. Complication and mortality rates have decreased from 11.7 and 1 percent in 1998 to 1.4 and 0.04 percent in 2016. Despite that, only 0.5 percent of eligible patients actually underwent bariatric surgery in 2016 (compared with 0.07 percent in 1993 and 0.62 percent in 2004).

This low percentage of utilization is likely the result of many factors. The increase in the number of patients who need bariatric surgery has likely outpaced the increase in the volume of bariatric surgeries performed. Some patients can be managed without surgery, while others are not suitable surgical candidates because of behavioral or psychosocial issues. There continues to be referral bias from clinicians who still believe either that obesity is a behavior problem rather than a disease for which surgery can be therapeutic, or that bariatric surgery is too risky. Finally, there remains payer resistance to covering bariatric surgery despite its well-documented cost effectiveness.

OVERALL MECHANISM OF WEIGHT LOSS — Bariatric surgical procedures affect weight loss through three fundamental mechanisms: malabsorption, restriction, and the neurohormonal response that regulates hunger and energy balance (table 1). Some procedures have both a restrictive and malabsorptive component [1,4-10].

Restriction — Restrictive procedures limit caloric intake by reducing the stomach's reservoir capacity via resection, bypass, or creation of a proximal gastric outlet. Vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) are purely restrictive procedures and share similar anatomical configurations. Both limit solid food intake by restriction of stomach size as the only mechanism of action, leaving the absorptive function of the small intestine intact. These procedures have largely been abandoned. The sleeve gastrectomy has become the main restrictive procedure, but it is probably more successful due to its hormonal effects on hunger control. Procedures such as intragastric balloon placement or aspiration therapy also work by restricting food intake but produce more gradual and modest weight loss with higher recidivism rates compared with other contemporary surgical procedures.

Malabsorption — Malabsorptive procedures decrease the effectiveness of nutrient absorption by shortening the absorption length of the functional small intestine, either through bypass of the small bowel absorptive surface area or diversion of the biliopancreatic secretions that facilitate absorption. Jejunoileal bypass (JIB) and the biliopancreatic diversion (BPD) are examples of malabsorptive procedures. Profound weight loss can be achieved by a malabsorptive operation, depending upon the effective length of the functional small bowel segment. However, the benefit of superior weight loss can be offset by significant metabolic complications, such as protein calorie malnutrition and various micronutrient deficiencies.

Combination of restriction and malabsorption — Established procedures such as the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), the BPD with duodenal switch (BPD/DS), and the single-anastomosis duodenal ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) are both restrictive and malabsorptive. In the RYGB, a small gastric pouch limits oral intake. However, the small bowel reconfiguration provides additional mechanisms favoring weight loss, including dumping physiology, positive hormonal changes, and mild malabsorption. There is an effect on hunger as well, likely due to the hormonal changes.

Less common procedures, including the one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and the single-anastomosis duodenal ileal bypass (SADI), also work by restriction and malabsorption as well as hormonal modulation.

PROCEDURES ENDORSED BY THE ASMBS — The American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric surgery (ASMBS) publishes and maintains a list of bariatric procedures that it endorses on its website. Centers accredited by the American College of Surgeons Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) may perform the following procedures without institutional review board (IRB) approval.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass — The Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (figure 1) remains one of the most commonly performed bariatric procedures. Global trends show an overall decline from approximately 65 percent in 2003 to 47 percent in 2011 of all bariatric procedures performed [11-14].

Description of RYGB — The RYGB is characterized by a small (less than 30 mL) proximal gastric pouch that is divided and separated from the distal stomach and anastomosed to a Roux limb of small bowel that is 75 to 150 cm in length (figure 2) [12,13]. The small gastric pouch and the narrow anastomotic outlet serve to restrict caloric intake, while the major digestion and absorption of nutrients occurs in the common channel where gastric acid, pepsin, intrinsic factor, pancreatic enzymes, and bile mix with ingested food (figure 3).

The small intestine is divided at a distance of 50 to 150 cm distal to the ligament of Treitz. By dividing the bowel, the surgeon creates a proximal biliopancreatic limb that transports the secretions from the gastric remnant, liver, and pancreas. The Roux limb (or alimentary limb) is anastomosed to the new gastric pouch and functions to drain consumed food. The cut end of the biliopancreatic limb and the Roux limb are then connected 75 to 150 cm distally from the gastrojejunostomy. Major digestion and absorption of nutrients then occurs in the resultant common channel where pancreatic enzymes and bile mix with ingested food. The ideal Roux limb, biliopancreatic limb, and common channel length have not been determined. (See 'RYGB revisions' below.)

Weight loss mechanism of RYGB — While the RYGB, with its small pouch, is primarily a restrictive operation, a malabsorptive component also contributes to weight loss. RYGB has been shown repeatedly to be better than purely restrictive procedures in long-term weight reduction [15]. Gut hormones also have a role in the weight loss seen following gastric bypass.

Gastrojejunostomy anatomy (connection between the stomach pouch and jejunum) is associated with dumping physiology and causes unpleasant symptoms of lightheadedness, nausea, diaphoresis and/or abdominal pain, and diarrhea when a high-sugar meal is ingested [16]. This response may serve as a negative conditioning response against consumption of a high-sugar diet postoperatively.

The optimal length of the Roux limb in achieving the best balance between weight reduction and complications of malabsorption is controversial. Increasing Roux limb length can lead to increased malabsorption, since lengthening the Roux limb effectively shortens the common channel limb where major digestion and absorption of the ingested nutrients occurs. At present, most surgeons do not make the Roux length longer than 150 cm. "Distalization" to make a longer biliopancreatic limb length with a shorter common channel has been used to treat patients with inadequate weight loss following standard RYGB, but the risk for metabolic complications increases similar to other malabsorptive operations, and weight loss results vary [17]. It may, in fact, be the length of the biliopancreatic limb that determines the best results for weight loss without malabsorption complications [18,19].

Ghrelin is a peptide hormone secreted in the foregut (stomach and duodenum) that stimulates the early phase of meal consumption. The normal pulsatile release of this orexigenic (appetite-producing) hormone appears to be inhibited in gastric bypass patients due to its unique foregut bypass configuration [4-6]. Such inhibition of ghrelin has also been observed in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy [7]. The reduced ghrelin levels may contribute to the characteristic loss of appetite seen in post-RYGB patients. An exaggerated response of peptide YY (PYY) may also contribute to the loss of appetite [6]. Reduced ghrelin levels may eventually increase to their normal levels [20]. (See "Obesity: Genetic contribution and pathophysiology" and "Ghrelin".)

Hormones such as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and cholecystokinin (CCK), which are increased after RYGB, may promote an anorectic state [20]. (See "Glucagon-like peptide 1-based therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus" and "Physiology of cholecystokinin".)

Expected weight loss from RYGB — The expected loss of excess weight after two years is approximately 70 percent [21].

The techniques of laparoscopic RYGB are covered in more detail in their own topic. (See "Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass".)

Sleeve gastrectomy — Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is a partial gastrectomy in which the majority of the greater curvature of the stomach is removed and a tubular stomach is created (image 1 and figure 4). SG was initially offered to patients with super severe obesity (body mass index [BMI] >60 kg/m2) as the first stage in surgical management [22,23]. The SG is technically easier to perform and viewed as "not as drastic" by patients. In 2016, it was the most commonly performed bariatric procedure in the world and in the United States [11,24].

Description of SG — SG is technically easier to perform than the RYGB as it does not require multiple anastomoses. It is also safer as it reduces the risks of internal herniation and protein and mineral malabsorption [25,26]. The antrum is divided approximately 2 to 6 cm away from the pylorus, and a sleeve is created around a 32 to 40 French bougie [27]. The tubular stomach is small in its capacity (restriction), resistant to stretching due to the absence of the fundus, and has few remaining ghrelin-producing cells. Although SG is a restrictive procedure, gastric motility changes also occur with surgery and may affect weight loss outcomes [28,29]. (See "Obesity: Genetic contribution and pathophysiology" and "Ghrelin".)

The SG will make the stomach a high-pressure organ with a sphincter at both ends. This is why leaks are more frequent than in RYGBs, and they are more difficult to manage [30]. Additionally, the SG has a much higher incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease because of its higher-pressure nature [31].

The laparoscopic approach to an SG can be found at the following link to the SAGES video library's page on sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity.

Weight loss mechanism of SG — SG should not be considered as only a restrictive option for the treatment of severe obesity. It is now a single-stage primary operation, rather than just a bridge procedure to a more technically challenging gastric bypass, biliopancreatic diversion, or SADI-S in high-risk patients [23,32]. Moreover, the hormonal changes it causes indicate that its success is not only due to restricted food intake. Ghrelin levels decrease and GLP-1 and PYY levels increase, promoting less hunger [33], while insulin resistance improves and aids glycemic control [34].

Expected weight loss from SG — At two years, the expected excess weight loss is approximately 60 percent [35-37].

The techniques of laparoscopic SG are covered in more detail in its own topic. (See "Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy".)

Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch — The biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS) is a variant of the biliopancreatic diversion (BPD) (figure 5) [38].

In the United States, the role of BPD/DS is not clear. Some surgeons perform this procedure for patients with BMI >50 kg/m2, while others reserve it as a revisional procedure for failure to lose weight or weight recidivism after other procedures. BPD results in fat and starch malabsorption. Its use has been limited by the high rates of protein malnutrition, anemia, diarrhea, and stomal ulceration [21,39]. Because BPD/DS is a technically difficult operation with a high complication rate, it has not been fully embraced as a bariatric procedure.

Description of BPD/DS — The original BPD procedure involves dividing the duodenum from the pylorus, removing the pylorus, and dividing the ileum. The distal ileum is then anastomosed to the stomach and the proximal ileum, with the output from the liver, pancreas, and duodenum (or biliopancreatic limb) anastomosed to the terminal ileum some 50 to 100 cm away from the ileocecal valve. The BPD with a DS procedure involves creating a sleeve gastrectomy with preservation of the pylorus and creation of a Roux limb with a short common channel. The BPD/DS procedure differs from the BPD in the portion of the stomach that is removed, as well as in the preservation of the pylorus, similar to an SG. This allows more forward flow of the contents of the biliopancreatic limb and avoids the complications of stasis that plagued the jejunoileal bypass (JIB) [38,39]. It is associated with a lower incidence of stomal ulceration and diarrhea than with BPD alone. SG complications can still occur with this procedure, though. Although complex, BPD/DS can be performed laparoscopically by experienced surgeons [40,41].

Weight loss mechanism of BPD/DS — BPD/DS is a combination of restrictive and malabsorptive weight loss mechanisms. Though less studied than the hormone responses for the SG and RYGB, there is most likely some contribution of altered hormone production to sustained weight loss. For example, ghrelin appears to be suppressed after a BPD/DS [42]. The contribution of gut hormones to weight loss and insulin sensitivity with a BPD/DS is largely unknown.

Expected excess weight loss from BPD/DS — At two years, the expected excess weight loss is approximately 70 to 80 percent [21].

Single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy — Single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) is fundamentally a variant of the BPD/DS operation, in which the transected duodenum is anastomosed to a loop of distal small bowel as opposed to the Roux-en-Y configuration used in classic BPD/DS. Thus, there is only one anastomosis. The SADI-S procedure was developed in part to reduce the complexity and therefore the risks of performing a Roux-en-Y configuration with small-diameter distal bowel and a need for two anastomoses.

SADI-S has been endorsed by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery as an appropriate primary metabolic bariatric procedure [43]. Additionally, it has been used as a conversional procedure for inadequate weight loss after either RYGB [44] or SG [45].

Description of SADI-S — The sleeve is created first, and the duodenum is divided about 4 cm from the pylorus. A single anastomosis is then created between the side of the distal small bowel and the end of the sleeve-like gastric pouch/duodenum (figure 6).

Most contemporary publications on SADI-S use a common channel length of no less than 300 cm, but SG sizes vary widely, from 34 to 54 Fr [46].

Weight loss mechanism of SADI-S — The weight loss occurs due to restrictive, malabsorptive, and probably hormonal mechanisms.

Expected excess weight loss from SADI-S — Reports are varied depending on the sleeve size, common channel length, and duration of follow-up, but one meta-analysis of 12 studies shows excess weight loss to be around 85 percent two years after the surgery [47].

In nonrandomized comparative studies, SADI-S achieved similar percent excess weight losses compared with RYGB [48], SG [49], and BPD/DS [50,51], but SADI-S patients had fewer anastomotic complications, bowel obstructions, internal hernias, and volvulus, presumably because SADI-S required one fewer anastomosis than the other two procedures [52]. SADI-S, however, was associated with greater risk of chronic diarrhea, even with a 300 cm common channel. With a common channel length less than 300 cm, the rates of malnutrition were very high. It is not clear why a BPD/DS can have a common channel of 150 to 200 cm but the SADI-S does better with a 300 cm common channel.

Intragastric balloon — The intragastric balloon (IGB) consists of a soft, saline-filled balloon that promotes a feeling of satiety and restriction (figure 7) [53-56]. An IGB has been advocated for use as a bridge to a more definitive surgical procedure [57]. Use of the balloon is also approved for patients with class I obesity (BMI 30 to 34.9 kg/m2). Three IGB devices, Orbera, Obalon, and ReShape balloons, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat obesity in adults with a BMI of 30 to 40 kg/m2 with one or more comorbid conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia. They are intended for patients who have failed previous attempts at weight loss through diet and exercise alone.

Other IGB systems are commercially available in various regions and countries but have not received FDA approval in the United States, including one that does not require endoscopic placement or retrieval [58]. Balloon placement is contraindicated in patients who have had previous gastric surgery or who have large hiatal hernias (>5 cm) [59].

Description of IGB — An IGB is typically inserted endoscopically and filled with 400 to 700 mL of saline, generally for a maximum of six months, beyond which time the leak rate increases significantly. A deflated balloon can migrate into the small intestine and cause bowel obstruction. Removal requires a second endoscopic procedure [1].

Adverse events include nausea, vomiting, reflux, balloon migration, balloon intolerance, balloon leak, and intestinal or stomach perforation. Balloons are typically filled with blue-dyed saline. If the patient's urine turns blue or green, then a balloon leak should be suspected. Patients should seek immediate medical attention as the balloon would then be at risk for migrating and causing an intestinal obstruction. The ReShape is a two-balloon device so that if one breaks, the second balloon can prevent migration [60].

Weight loss mechanism of IGB — The IGB is purely a restrictive procedure. Weight loss is dependent on adherence to lifestyle changes and patient compliance.

Expected weight loss from IGB — In one trial, those who were randomly assigned to the ReShape group lost more weight than the control group who received endoscopy without balloon insertion (6.5 kg [6.8 percent of total body weight] versus 3.3 kg [3.3 percent]) [61]. Six months after removal of the device, patients kept off 70 percent of their initial weight loss. After two years, patients treated with the ReShape device had significantly greater excess weight loss than controls (25 versus 11 percent).

As much as 33 percent excess weight loss has been reported in trials conducted outside of the United States with devices not approved by the FDA [62]. After five years of surveillance, however, only 23 percent of patients maintained more than 20 percent of their excess weight loss [63].

IGB therapy for weight loss is discussed in detail in its own topic. (See "Intragastric balloon therapy for weight loss".)

One-anastomosis gastric bypass — The one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a modification of the loop gastric bypass and is technically easier to perform than an RYGB because it requires only one anastomosis [33,64]. OAGB is a simple and safe procedure and can be easily revised, converted, or reversed [11,65,66]. It is also referred to as the mini-gastric bypass. It was endorsed by the ASMBS as a primary procedure in 2022. Outside of the United States, OAGB is a popular operation with an estimated 10,000 procedures done annually [2].

Description of OAGB — The OAGB is usually performed laparoscopically and includes the division of the stomach between the antrum and body on the lesser curvature (figure 8). The stomach is further divided in the cephalad direction to the angle of His. This subsequent pouch is anastomosed to a loop of jejunum as an antecolic and antegastric loop gastrojejunostomy [67]. Although there is no consensus on a standardized length, most studies used a 200 cm biliopancreatic limb distal to the ligament of Treitz.

Weight loss mechanism of OAGB — The OAGB combines restrictive as well as malabsorptive properties for weight loss [67-69]. Though not extensively studied, there are likely hormonal changes that occur such that insulin sensitivity improves and hunger is abated.

Expected excess weight loss — Weight loss outcomes after OAGB appear to be comparable to those of RYGB, with most series reporting 68.6 to 85 percent excess weight lost (EWL) at ≥5 year follow-up [70]. Studies have generally found either superior or comparable weight loss with OAGB compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) [71-73]. Initial evidence suggests that OAGB is similar to RYGB in its ability to induce remission of type 2 diabetes [74,75]. One trial reported lower glycated hemoglobin (6.1 versus 7.1 percent) after OAGB than after LSG [76].

A trial of 261 patients (YOMEGA) found similar excess body mass index loss at two years after OAGB (-87.9 percent) and RYGB (-85.8 percent); HbA1C improved to a greater extent after OAGB than RYGB (-2.3 versus -1.3 percent) in patients with type 2 diabetes [77]. However, OAGB was associated with almost twice as many overall serious complications, and more complications related to malabsorption (eg, nutritional deficiency, diarrhea, steatorrhea), than RYGB. This trial used a biliopancreatic limb of 200 cm, which may have caused the excessive malabsorption. Contemporary studies use a shorter limb of 150 to 180 cm instead.

However, although OAGB has a relatively short operative time, low complication rate, and excellent weight loss outcomes, there is a concern for the high rates of alkaline bile reflux [70,78-80]. There does not appear to be an associated risk of malignant degeneration [81]. If the bile reflux becomes severe enough, a conversion to an RYGB is used as a rescue procedure.

PROCEDURES NOT ENDORSED BY THE ASMBS — The American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric surgery (ASMBS) publishes and maintains a list of bariatric procedures that it endorses on its website. Since the following procedures are not endorsed by the ASMBS as of 2022, centers accredited by the American College of Surgeons Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) must obtain institutional review board (IRB) approval before performing them.

Aspiration therapy — Aspiration therapy induces weight loss by removing a portion of ingested caloric intake after each meal via a modified percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube system.

Description of aspiration therapy — An example of aspiration therapy, the AspireAssist, has been approved by the FDA to treat patients who are 22 and older, have obesity with a body mass index (BMI) of 35 to 55, and who have failed weight loss through nonsurgical weight loss therapy. The AspireAssist device is placed via a small incision in the abdomen with endoscopic assistance. At approximately 20 to 30 minutes after each meal, the patient opens a port valve to allow the device to drain stomach contents into the toilet. The device has a built-in safety feature to prompt regular medical visits to a health care provider.

Aspiration therapy is contraindicated in patients with several conditions, including eating disorders (FDA approval AspireAssist). Side effects expected to occur with the placement and use of AspireAssist are similar to those of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube. (See "Gastrostomy tubes: Complications and their management".)

Weight loss mechanism of aspiration therapy — Aspiration therapy is purely a restrictive procedure. Weight loss is dependent on patient compliance and adherence to lifestyle changes.

Expected weight loss from aspiration therapy — In a trial of 207 patients with a BMI of 35 to 55 kg/m2, aspiration therapy plus lifestyle counseling achieved greater percent total body weight loss compared with lifestyle counseling alone (12.1±9.6 versus 3.5±6 percent) at one year [82]. Fifty-eight patients continued aspiration therapy beyond one year and achieved percent total body weight loss of 14, 15, 17, and 19 percent at one, two, three, and four years. No clinically significant metabolic or electrolyte disorders or eating disorders were observed. Four serious adverse events occurred during year 1, followed by two additional ones in year 2 through 4. Two persistent gastric fistulas required surgical repair [83].

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty — Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG), also known as endoluminal vertical gastroplasty, is an endoscopic approach for suturing the stomach that offers the potential to perform gastric-restrictive procedures endoscopically.

Description of ESG — The anterior and posterior walls of the stomach are suctioned together, then held in place by either a stapler or T-fastener device to create a tube of stomach similar to the SG. Additional fasteners or staples can be applied until the desired lumen size is achieved [84]. Similar to an endoscopic device that created a fundoplication, there has been an issue with durability as a significant amount of staples and fasteners may not be holding the stomach tissue after one year [85].

In 2022, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved an endoscopic suturing system specifically designed for the ESG procedure. This device is intended for adults with a BMI between 30 and 50 kg/m2 who have not been able to lose weight or maintain weight loss through more conservative measures [86].

Weight loss mechanism of ESG — The mechanism for weight loss appears to be purely restrictive. It is not known if the hormonal effects seen in an SG occur with an ESG. In theory, they should not be a mechanism that adds to weight loss, since the stomach is not removed from the patient as it is with the SG.

Expected excess weight loss from ESG — In a multicenter US trial (MERIT) of 209 individuals with class 1 or 2 obesity, those who underwent ESG lost more weight than controls (13.6 versus 0.8 mean percent total weight loss; 49.2 versus 3.2 mean percent excess weight loss [EWL]) at 52 weeks [86]. Eighty percent of patients who underwent ESG had an improvement in one or more metabolic comorbidities, whereas 12 percent worsened, compared with the control group in which 45 percent improved, whereas 50 percent worsened. At 104 weeks, 68 percent of the patients who underwent ESG maintained ≥25 percent EWL. ESG-related serious adverse events occurred in 2 percent of the participants, without mortality or need for intensive care or surgery.

The MERIT study is consistent with the reported literature. According to a 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis of eight observational studies worldwide, the pooled mean percent total weight loss at 6, 12, and 24 months was 14.86 (95% CI 13.83-15.90), 16.43 (95% CI 15.23-17.63), and 20.01 (95% CI 16.92-23.11), respectively. Serious adverse events, which included gastrointestinal bleeding and perigastric fluid collection, occurred at a low pooled incidence of 2.26 percent (95% CI 1.25-4.03) without mortality [87]. In 1000 consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, mean percent total weight loss at 6, 12, and 19 months was 14, 15, and 15 percent, respectively [88].

The durability of this technique has not been examined to a great extent [89], and this remains the biggest concern with this procedure. In a prospective cohort study of 216 patients, mean total weight loss was 15.9 percent (95% CI 11.7-20.5) at five years, with 90 and 61 percent of patients maintaining 5 and 10 percent total weight loss, respectively [90]. The overall rate of adverse events was 1.3 percent, without any severe or fatal adverse events.

Endoscopic gastrointestinal bypass devices — A barrier device is deployed to prevent luminal contents from being absorbed in the proximal small intestine.

Weight loss mechanism of EGIBD — The EndoBarrier is 60 cm long and extends from the proximal duodenum to the midjejunum, thus mimicking a duodenojejunal bypass. It is a safe procedure but is hallmarked by an up to 20 percent rate of early removal due to patient intolerance [84].

The ValenTx is a 120 cm barrier device that extends from the gastroesophageal junction to the jejunum [84]. This too has a high rate of early removal, but excess weight loss at three months was reported to be 40 percent, and significant improvement was seen in seven out of seven diabetic patients within those three months [91].

Expected outcomes of EGIBD — Data are still lacking about the longevity of these endobarriers and their outcomes once the barrier is removed.

Laparoscopic gastric plication — Similar to endoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (ESG), laparoscopic gastric plication (LGP) forms a gastric sleeve without requiring resection. Unlike ESG, however, LGP is done laparoscopically and does not require special endoscopic equipment; the gastric sleeve is formed by plicating the greater curvature to itself to reduce the lumen of the stomach.

Compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), LGP appears to have worse long-term outcomes (eg, weight loss, diabetes resolution), more complications, and similar operating time and length of hospital stay [92,93]. Thus, it is doubtful at this point that the LGP will become a meaningful operation for obesity and metabolic control.

Bariatric arterial embolization — This endovascular approach promotes weight loss by embolizing the left gastric artery to induce localized ischemia in the gastric fundus, which in theory modulates the endocrine functions to suppress appetite. Multiple studies have demonstrated appetite suppression and weight loss (8 percent total body weight; 11 to 17 percent excess body weight at one year) with a favorable safety profile [94].

Although there is a benefit over diet and lifestyle modifications, bariatric arterial embolization does not approach the weight loss efficacy of bariatric surgical approaches [95], but it appears to be as effective as many available weight loss medications [96]. It remains an investigational procedure.


Band revisions — For patients who fail the band or who have complications from it that require removal, there are several conversion options that have been published. The band can be replaced, or it can be converted to a sleeve gastrectomy (SG), a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), or biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS) [1]. The timing of the revision can be important as the gastric tissue may be inflamed or fibrotic due to the band. As a result, some authors have advocated a staged approach. The band is first removed, and then, after a period of 8 to 12 weeks, the stomach is converted to another bariatric procedure.

RYGB revisions — While most people who experience weight recidivism do so because of a failure to adhere to a healthy lifestyle, there are some anatomical reasons that an RYGB might fail. Over time, the patient may lose the sense of restriction if their gastric pouch enlarges, a fistula occurs between the gastric pouch and the remnant stomach, or the anastomosis between the gastric pouch and the Roux limb enlarges. These conditions may be an indication to surgically recreate the gastric pouch and gastrojejunal anastomosis [97,98]. There are some preliminary data using endoluminal measures to do so that show promise because they avoid the risk of reoperative bariatric surgery, which has a higher morbidity than de novo operations. There are no long-term studies, however, on the durability of these maneuvers.

The concept of "distalization" or revising the jejunojejunostomy anastomosis to make the biliopancreatic limb longer has gained some traction. For these patients, there are no issues with the gastric pouch, but they have regained a significant amount of weight. The biliopancreatic limb is lengthened without sacrificing too much of the common channel. This has resulted in some positive results for renewed weight loss and comorbidity control [99].

The indication to operate for weight regain still requires a body mass index (BMI) of >40 kg/m2, a BMI >35 kg/m2 with a comorbid condition, or a BMI of >30 kg/m2 with dysmetabolic syndrome or difficult-to-control type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The laparoscopic approach to a failed RYGB with biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch can be found on the following link to the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) video library's page on laparoscopic conversion of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch.

Sleeve revisions — One criticism of the SG was the durability of the operation as one theorized that, over time, the SG could expand and patients would lose their restriction. The three-year data suggest that SG is comparable to RYGB in terms of sustained weight loss and diabetes remission [27]. At five years, however, at least one study showed that the durability of SG was not as good as that of RYGB because of weight regain and recurrence of diabetes over time [100]. Additionally, sleeve revisions are done for intractable reflux disease in patients with satisfactory weight loss [101].


Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding — Adjustable gastric banding (AGB) is a purely restrictive procedure that compartmentalizes the upper stomach by placing a tight, adjustable prosthetic band around the entrance to the stomach (figure 9 and figure 10). While AGB can be performed by an open approach, it is most commonly performed laparoscopically (LAGB).

AGB is performed less often in contemporary bariatric practices, declining from 24 percent of all bariatric procedures in 2003 to 0.9 percent in 2019 [11,24]. The decline may be due to its relatively modest amount of expected weight loss, coupled with high rates of revision and weight recidivism [11,102]. It has been gradually replaced by other bariatric surgical procedures, especially sleeve gastrectomy, which offers better results for weight loss and comorbidity resolution [103].

Description of LAGB — The gastric band consists of a soft, locking silicone ring connected to an infusion port placed in the subcutaneous tissue. The port may be accessed with relative ease by a syringe and needle. Injection of saline into the port leads to reduction in the band diameter, resulting in an increased degree of restriction. The band is adjustable and is placed laparoscopically [104,105]. The goal of band adjustments is to give the patient a restriction of approximately one cup of dried food and satiety for at least 1.5 to 2 hours after a meal.

The laparoscopic approach to the placement of a gastric band can be found at the following link to the SAGES video library's page on laparoscopic adjustable gastric band placement.

Weight loss mechanism of LAGB — LAGB is a restrictive procedure that had gained significant attention among bariatric surgeons and patients primarily because of its perceived simplicity and lower perioperative complication rates when compared with more involved procedures such as RYGB [106]. The amount of restriction can be modified over time and allow increased restriction to occur if the patient requires it.

Expected weight loss from LAGB — LAGB results in an approximate 50 to 60 percent excess weight loss at two years [102]. Many patients have been able to sustain durable weight loss and comorbidity resolution with proper use and maintenance of the band.

OBSOLETE PROCEDURES — The following procedures are obsolete and no longer performed.

Jejunoileal bypass — The jejunoileal bypass (JIB) was one of the first bariatric operations, performed initially in 1969 (figure 11) [107,108]. It has since been abandoned due to the high complication rate and frequent need for revisional surgery. Its importance lies in the care of surviving patients who have undergone this procedure. Although excess weight loss was excellent, jejunoileal bypass was associated with multiple complications, such as liver failure (up to 30 percent), death, diarrhea, electrolyte imbalances, oxalate renal stones, vitamin deficiencies, malnutrition, and arthritis [109-113].

The procedure was performed by dividing the jejunum close to the ligament of Treitz and connecting it a short distance proximal to the ileocecal valve, thereby diverting a long segment of small bowel, resulting in malabsorption.

Patients who have undergone this procedure should be monitored closely for complications (particularly liver disease) and undergo reversal if such complications arise. (See "Late complications of bariatric surgical operations".)

Vertical banded gastroplasty — A gastroplasty narrows the area of food passage between the proximal and distal stomach. This procedure did not result in significant weight loss, and the vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) was subsequently created to put a more permanent restrictive barrier between the proximal and distal stomach [14].

VBG is a purely restrictive procedure in which the upper part of the stomach is partitioned by a vertical staple line with a tight outlet wrapped by a prosthetic mesh or band (figure 12). The small upper stomach pouch is filled quickly by solid food and prevents consumption of a large meal. Weight loss occurs because of decreased caloric intake of solid food. Patients who have undergone VBG can be expected to have excess weight loss (EWL) of 58 percent [114]. The effectiveness of such a restrictive mechanism depends upon the durability of pouch and stoma (outlet) size. Ingestion of high-calorie liquid meals and gradually increased pouch capacity due to overeating have been some of the major causes of its failure. Sweets eaters who rely on soft meals (ie, ice cream, milk shakes) do not benefit significantly from this procedure [15].

VBG has been replaced largely by other procedures and is rarely performed due to lack of sustained/desired weight loss as well as the high incidence of complications requiring revision (20 to 56 percent) [15,115-119]. The majority of revisions are required for staple line disruption, stomal stenosis, band erosion, band disruption, pouch dilatation, vomiting, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. (See "Late complications of bariatric surgical operations".)

Vagal blockade — The abdominal vagal nerve controls gastric emptying and signals the satiety center in the brain. A surgically implanted device that sends intermittent electrical pulses to the abdominal vagal nerve has been approved by the FDA as a possible treatment for obesity, but this system is not currently commercially available.

LAPAROSCOPIC VERSUS OPEN SURGICAL APPROACH — The laparoscopic approach is preferred over the open approach because of improved recovery and lower morbidity and is the most common approach used. Data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2003 through 2008 documented that the proportion of laparoscopic bariatric operations increased from 20 percent in 2003 to 97.7 percent in 2015 [120,121].

Minimally invasive techniques were first applied in bariatric surgery in the 1990s. The first laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) series was reported in 1994 in the United States [122]. Although technically challenging with a steep learning curve, laparoscopic RYGB can be performed safely by experienced surgeons [123,124]. The laparoscopic approach offers several advantages, such as reduced blood loss, lower incidence of incisional hernia, wound infection, faster recovery, and a shorter hospital stay than with open surgery [125-127]. Although the procedure can be limited by patient size, as well as instrument and trocar length, even extremely large patients have been successfully completed laparoscopically [128]. Previous abdominal surgery is not a contraindication to performing bariatric procedures laparoscopically. (See "Bariatric operations: Early (fewer than 30 days) morbidity and mortality".)

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Bariatric surgery".)

INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS — UpToDate offers two types of patient education materials, "The Basics" and "Beyond the Basics." The Basics patient education pieces are written in plain language, at the 5th to 6th grade reading level, and they answer the four or five key questions a patient might have about a given condition. These articles are best for patients who want a general overview and who prefer short, easy-to-read materials. Beyond the Basics patient education pieces are longer, more sophisticated, and more detailed. These articles are written at the 10th to 12th grade reading level and are best for patients who want in-depth information and are comfortable with some medical jargon.

Here are the patient education articles that are relevant to this topic. We encourage you to print or e-mail these topics to your patients. (You can also locate patient education articles on a variety of subjects by searching on "patient info" and the keyword(s) of interest.)

Basics topic (see "Patient education: Weight loss surgery (The Basics)")

Beyond the Basics topics (see "Patient education: Losing weight (Beyond the Basics)" and "Patient education: Weight loss surgery and procedures (Beyond the Basics)")


Mechanism of action – Contemporary operations for weight loss, such as the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and the biliopancreatic diversion-duodenal switch (BPD-DS), include a combination of volume-restrictive and nutrient-malabsorptive procedures that affect satiety, absorption, and insulin sensitivity via hormonal or enteric-derived factors, in conjunction with behavior modification. (See 'Overall mechanism of weight loss' above.)

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass – The RYGB, characterized by a small (less than 30 mL) proximal gastric pouch that is divided and separated from the distal stomach and anastomosed to a Roux limb of small bowel that is 75 to 150 cm in length, is a commonly performed bariatric procedure. (See 'Roux-en-Y gastric bypass' above and "Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass".)

Sleeve gastrectomy – Sleeve gastrectomy (SG), a partial gastrectomy in which the majority of the greater curvature of the stomach is removed and a tubular stomach is created, is the most commonly performed bariatric procedure. (See 'Sleeve gastrectomy' above and "Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy".)

Endoscopic therapies – Although several newer procedures, such as intragastric balloon therapy, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, and aspiration therapy, are available and have received United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, none has achieved the same level of success or durability as the main contemporary surgical procedures. (See 'Intragastric balloon' above and 'Aspiration therapy' above and "Intragastric balloon therapy for weight loss".)

Revisional procedures – While most people who experience weight recidivism do so because of a failure to adhere to a healthy lifestyle, technical problems such as gastric pouch enlargement can be corrected surgically. (See 'Primarily revisional procedures' above.)

  1. Lim RB, Blackburn GL, Jones DB. Benchmarking best practices in weight loss surgery. Curr Probl Surg 2010; 47:79.
  2. Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, et al. Bariatric Surgery and Endoluminal Procedures: IFSO Worldwide Survey 2014. Obes Surg 2017; 27:2279.
  3. Campos GM, Khoraki J, Browning MG, et al. Changes in Utilization of Bariatric Surgery in the United States From 1993 to 2016. Ann Surg 2020; 271:201.
  4. Tritos NA, Mun E, Bertkau A, et al. Serum ghrelin levels in response to glucose load in obese subjects post-gastric bypass surgery. Obes Res 2003; 11:919.
  5. Cummings DE, Weigle DS, Frayo RS, et al. Plasma ghrelin levels after diet-induced weight loss or gastric bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:1623.
  6. Korner J, Bessler M, Cirilo LJ, et al. Effects of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery on fasting and postprandial concentrations of plasma ghrelin, peptide YY, and insulin. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005; 90:359.
  7. Karamanakos SN, Vagenas K, Kalfarentzos F, Alexandrides TK. Weight loss, appetite suppression, and changes in fasting and postprandial ghrelin and peptide-YY levels after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective, double blind study. Ann Surg 2008; 247:401.
  8. le Roux CW, Aylwin SJ, Batterham RL, et al. Gut hormone profiles following bariatric surgery favor an anorectic state, facilitate weight loss, and improve metabolic parameters. Ann Surg 2006; 243:108.
  9. Rubino F, Gagner M, Gentileschi P, et al. The early effect of the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on hormones involved in body weight regulation and glucose metabolism. Ann Surg 2004; 240:236.
  10. Roth CL, Reinehr T, Schernthaner GH, et al. Ghrelin and obestatin levels in severely obese women before and after weight loss after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery. Obes Surg 2009; 19:29.
  11. Buchwald H, Oien DM. Metabolic/bariatric surgery worldwide 2011. Obes Surg 2013; 23:427.
  12. Elder KA, Wolfe BM. Bariatric surgery: a review of procedures and outcomes. Gastroenterology 2007; 132:2253.
  13. Samuel I, Mason EE, Renquist KE, et al. Bariatric surgery trends: an 18-year report from the International Bariatric Surgery Registry. Am J Surg 2006; 192:657.
  14. Austrheim-Smith I, Brethauer S, Rogula T, Wolfe B. Evolution of bariatric minimally invasive surgery. In: Minimally Invasive Bariatric Surgery, Schauer P, Schirmer B, Brethauer S (Eds), Springer, 2007. p.17.
  15. Sugerman HJ, Starkey JV, Birkenhauer R. A randomized prospective trial of gastric bypass versus vertical banded gastroplasty for morbid obesity and their effects on sweets versus non-sweets eaters. Ann Surg 1987; 205:613.
  16. Kellum JM, Kuemmerle JF, O'Dorisio TM, et al. Gastrointestinal hormone responses to meals before and after gastric bypass and vertical banded gastroplasty. Ann Surg 1990; 211:763.
  17. Brolin RE, LaMarca LB, Kenler HA, Cody RP. Malabsorptive gastric bypass in patients with superobesity. J Gastrointest Surg 2002; 6:195.
  18. Nora M, Morais T, Almeida R, et al. Should Roux-en-Y gastric bypass biliopancreatic limb length be tailored to achieve improved diabetes outcomes? Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96:e8859.
  19. Zorrilla-Nunez LF, Campbell A, Giambartolomei G, et al. The importance of the biliopancreatic limb length in gastric bypass: A systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019; 15:43.
  20. Jacobsen SH, Olesen SC, Dirksen C, et al. Changes in gastrointestinal hormone responses, insulin sensitivity, and beta-cell function within 2 weeks after gastric bypass in non-diabetic subjects. Obes Surg 2012; 22:1084.
  21. Nelson DW, Blair KS, Martin MJ. Analysis of obesity-related outcomes and bariatric failure rates with the duodenal switch vs gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Arch Surg 2012; 147:847.
  22. Almogy G, Crookes PF, Anthone GJ. Longitudinal gastrectomy as a treatment for the high-risk super-obese patient. Obes Surg 2004; 14:492.
  23. Regan JP, Inabnet WB, Gagner M, Pomp A. Early experience with two-stage laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as an alternative in the super-super obese patient. Obes Surg 2003; 13:861.
  24. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS). Estimate of Bariatric Surgery Numbers. Available at: (Accessed on January 24, 2022).
  25. Felberbauer FX, Langer F, Shakeri-Manesch S, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as an isolated bariatric procedure: intermediate-term results from a large series in three Austrian centers. Obes Surg 2008; 18:814.
  26. Moon Han S, Kim WW, Oh JH. Results of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) at 1 year in morbidly obese Korean patients. Obes Surg 2005; 15:1469.
  27. Deitel M, Gagner M, Erickson AL, Crosby RD. Third International Summit: Current status of sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2011; 7:749.
  28. Baumann T, Kuesters S, Grueneberger J, et al. Time-resolved MRI after ingestion of liquids reveals motility changes after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy--preliminary results. Obes Surg 2011; 21:95.
  29. Braghetto I, Davanzo C, Korn O, et al. Scintigraphic evaluation of gastric emptying in obese patients submitted to sleeve gastrectomy compared to normal subjects. Obes Surg 2009; 19:1515.
  30. Yehoshua RT, Eidelman LA, Stein M, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy--volume and pressure assessment. Obes Surg 2008; 18:1083.
  31. Viscido G, Gorodner V, Signorini F, et al. Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Endoscopic Findings and Gastroesophageal Reflux Symptoms at 18-Month Follow-Up. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2018; 28:71.
  32. Gagner M, Deitel M, Kalberer TL, et al. The Second International Consensus Summit for Sleeve Gastrectomy, March 19-21, 2009. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2009; 5:476.
  33. Ramón JM, Salvans S, Crous X, et al. Effect of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy on glucose and gut hormones: a prospective randomised trial. J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 16:1116.
  34. Schauer PR, Kashyap SR, Wolski K, et al. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy in obese patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1567.
  35. Hutter MM, Schirmer BD, Jones DB, et al. First report from the American College of Surgeons Bariatric Surgery Center Network: laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has morbidity and effectiveness positioned between the band and the bypass. Ann Surg 2011; 254:410.
  36. Cottam D, Qureshi FG, Mattar SG, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as an initial weight-loss procedure for high-risk patients with morbid obesity. Surg Endosc 2006; 20:859.
  37. van Rutte PW, Smulders JF, de Zoete JP, Nienhuijs SW. Outcome of sleeve gastrectomy as a primary bariatric procedure. Br J Surg 2014; 101:661.
  38. Hess DS, Hess DW. Biliopancreatic diversion with a duodenal switch. Obes Surg 1998; 8:267.
  39. Marceau P, Hould FS, Simard S, et al. Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch. World J Surg 1998; 22:947.
  40. Ren CJ, Patterson E, Gagner M. Early results of laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch: a case series of 40 consecutive patients. Obes Surg 2000; 10:514.
  41. Baltasar A, Bou R, Miró J, et al. Laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch: technique and initial experience. Obes Surg 2002; 12:245.
  42. Kotidis EV, Koliakos G, Papavramidis TS, Papavramidis ST. The effect of biliopancreatic diversion with pylorus-preserving sleeve gastrectomy and duodenal switch on fasting serum ghrelin, leptin and adiponectin levels: is there a hormonal contribution to the weight-reducing effect of this procedure? Obes Surg 2006; 16:554.
  43. Kallies K, Rogers AM, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Clinical Issues Committee. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery updated statement on single-anastomosis duodenal switch. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2020; 16:825.
  44. Surve A, Zaveri H, Cottam D, et al. Mid-term outcomes of gastric bypass weight loss failure to duodenal switch. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2016; 12:1663.
  45. Lee Y, Ellenbogen Y, Doumouras AG, et al. Single- or double-anastomosis duodenal switch versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as a revisional procedure for sleeve gastrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019; 15:556.
  46. Topart P, Becouarn G. The single anastomosis duodenal switch modifications: a review of the current literature on outcomes. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2017; 13:1306.
  47. Shoar S, Poliakin L, Rubenstein R, Saber AA. Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Switch (SADIS): A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety. Obes Surg 2018; 28:104.
  48. Cottam A, Cottam D, Medlin W, et al. A matched cohort analysis of single anastomosis loop duodenal switch versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with 18-month follow-up. Surg Endosc 2016; 30:3958.
  49. Cottam A, Cottam D, Roslin M, et al. A Matched Cohort Analysis of Sleeve Gastrectomy With and Without 300 cm Loop Duodenal Switch With 18-Month Follow-Up. Obes Surg 2016; 26:2363.
  50. Cottam A, Cottam D, Portenier D, et al. A Matched Cohort Analysis of Stomach Intestinal Pylorus Saving (SIPS) Surgery Versus Biliopancreatic Diversion with Duodenal Switch with Two-Year Follow-up. Obes Surg 2017; 27:454.
  51. Moon RC, Kirkpatrick V, Gaskins L, et al. Safety and effectiveness of single- versus double-anastomosis duodenal switch at a single institution. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019; 15:245.
  52. Surve A, Cottam D, Sanchez-Pernaute A, et al. The incidence of complications associated with loop duodeno-ileostomy after single-anastomosis duodenal switch procedures among 1328 patients: a multicenter experience. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2018; 14:594.
  53. Mathus-Vliegen EM, Tytgat GN. Intragastric balloon for treatment-resistant obesity: safety, tolerance, and efficacy of 1-year balloon treatment followed by a 1-year balloon-free follow-up. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61:19.
  54. Roman S, Napoléon B, Mion F, et al. Intragastric balloon for "non-morbid" obesity: a retrospective evaluation of tolerance and efficacy. Obes Surg 2004; 14:539.
  55. Sallet JA, Marchesini JB, Paiva DS, et al. Brazilian multicenter study of the intragastric balloon. Obes Surg 2004; 14:991.
  56. Busetto L, Segato G, De Luca M, et al. Preoperative weight loss by intragastric balloon in super-obese patients treated with laparoscopic gastric banding: a case-control study. Obes Surg 2004; 14:671.
  57. Zerrweck C, Maunoury V, Caiazzo R, et al. Preoperative weight loss with intragastric balloon decreases the risk of significant adverse outcomes of laparoscopic gastric bypass in super-super obese patients. Obes Surg 2012; 22:777.
  58. Genco A, Ernesti I, Ienca R, et al. Safety and Efficacy of a New Swallowable Intragastric Balloon Not Needing Endoscopy: Early Italian Experience. Obes Surg 2018; 28:405.
  59. Kim SH, Chun HJ, Choi HS, et al. Current status of intragastric balloon for obesity treatment. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22:5495.
  60. Vyas D, Deshpande K, Pandya Y. Advances in endoscopic balloon therapy for weight loss and its limitations. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23:7813.
  61. Ponce J, Woodman G, Swain J, et al. The REDUCE pivotal trial: a prospective, randomized controlled pivotal trial of a dual intragastric balloon for the treatment of obesity. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2015; 11:874.
  62. Genco A, Bruni T, Doldi SB, et al. BioEnterics Intragastric Balloon: The Italian Experience with 2,515 Patients. Obes Surg 2005; 15:1161.
  63. Kotzampassi K, Grosomanidis V, Papakostas P, et al. 500 intragastric balloons: what happens 5 years thereafter? Obes Surg 2012; 22:896.
  64. Wang W, Wei PL, Lee YC, et al. Short-term results of laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass. Obes Surg 2005; 15:648.
  65. Noun R, Skaff J, Riachi E, et al. One thousand consecutive mini-gastric bypass: short- and long-term outcome. Obes Surg 2012; 22:697.
  66. Noun R, Riachi E, Zeidan S, et al. Mini-gastric bypass by mini-laparotomy: a cost-effective alternative in the laparoscopic era. Obes Surg 2007; 17:1482.
  67. Rutledge R. The mini-gastric bypass: experience with the first 1,274 cases. Obes Surg 2001; 11:276.
  68. Lee WJ, Ser KH, Lee YC, et al. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y vs. mini-gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity: a 10-year experience. Obes Surg 2012; 22:1827.
  69. Fong AK, Wong SK, Lam CC, Ng EK. Ghrelin level and weight loss after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and gastric mini-bypass for Prader-Willi syndrome in Chinese. Obes Surg 2012; 22:1742.
  70. Parikh M, Eisenberg D, Johnson J, et al. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery review of the literature on one-anastomosis gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2018; 14:1088.
  71. Plamper A, Lingohr P, Nadal J, Rheinwalt KP. Comparison of mini-gastric bypass with sleeve gastrectomy in a mainly super-obese patient group: first results. Surg Endosc 2017; 31:1156.
  72. Magouliotis DE, Tasiopoulou VS, Svokos AA, et al. One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obes Surg 2017; 27:2479.
  73. Seetharamaiah S, Tantia O, Goyal G, et al. LSG vs OAGB-1 Year Follow-up Data-a Randomized Control Trial. Obes Surg 2017; 27:948.
  74. Quan Y, Huang A, Ye M, et al. Efficacy of Laparoscopic Mini Gastric Bypass for Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2015; 2015:152852.
  75. Bhandari M, Nautiyal HK, Kosta S, et al. Comparison of one-anastomosis gastric bypass and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for treatment of obesity: a 5-year study. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019; 15:2038.
  76. Lee WJ, Chong K, Lin YH, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus single anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: 5-year results of a randomized trial and study of incretin effect. Obes Surg 2014; 24:1552.
  77. Robert M, Espalieu P, Pelascini E, et al. Efficacy and safety of one anastomosis gastric bypass versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for obesity (YOMEGA): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2019; 393:1299.
  78. Eldredge TA, Bills M, Ting YY, et al. Once in a Bile - the Incidence of Bile Reflux Post-Bariatric Surgery. Obes Surg 2022; 32:1428.
  79. Saarinen T, Räsänen J, Salo J, et al. Bile Reflux Scintigraphy After Mini-Gastric Bypass. Obes Surg 2017; 27:2083.
  80. Dang H, Arias E, Szomstein S, Rosenthal R. Laparoscopic conversion of distal mini-gastric bypass to proximal Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for malnutrition: case report and review of the literature. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2009; 5:383.
  81. Mahawar KK, Himpens J, Shikora SA, et al. The First Consensus Statement on One Anastomosis/Mini Gastric Bypass (OAGB/MGB) Using a Modified Delphi Approach. Obes Surg 2018; 28:303.
  82. Thompson CC, Abu Dayyeh BK, Kushner R, et al. Percutaneous Gastrostomy Device for the Treatment of Class II and Class III Obesity: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2017; 112:447.
  83. Thompson CC, Abu Dayyeh BK, Kushnir V, et al. Aspiration therapy for the treatment of obesity: 4-year results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019; 15:1348.
  84. Majumder S, Birk J. A review of the current status of endoluminal therapy as a primary approach to obesity management. Surg Endosc 2013; 27:2305.
  85. Familiari P, Costamagna G, Bléro D, et al. Transoral gastroplasty for morbid obesity: a multicenter trial with a 1-year outcome. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74:1248.
  86. Abu Dayyeh BK, Bazerbachi F, Vargas EJ, et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty for treatment of class 1 and 2 obesity (MERIT): a prospective, multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet 2022; 400:441.
  87. Singh S, Hourneaux de Moura DT, Khan A, et al. Safety and efficacy of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty worldwide for treatment of obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2020; 16:340.
  88. Alqahtani A, Al-Darwish A, Mahmoud AE, et al. Short-term outcomes of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty in 1000 consecutive patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89:1132.
  89. Cohen RV, Oliveira da Costa MV, Charry L, Heins E. Endoscopic gastroplasty to treat medically uncontrolled obesity needs more quality data: A systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019; 15:1219.
  90. Sharaiha RZ, Hajifathalian K, Kumar R, et al. Five-Year Outcomes of Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty for the Treatment of Obesity. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19:1051.
  91. Sandler BJ, Rumbaut R, Swain CP, et al. Human experience with an endoluminal, endoscopic, gastrojejunal bypass sleeve. Surg Endosc 2011; 25:3028.
  92. Barrichello S, Minata MK, García Ruiz de Gordejuela A, et al. Laparoscopic Greater Curvature Plication and Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Treatments for Obesity: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Short- and Mid-Term Results. Obes Surg 2018; 28:3199.
  93. Abdelbaki TN, Sharaan M, Abdel-Baki NA, Katri K. Laparoscopic gastric greater curvature plication versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: early outcome in 140 patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2014; 10:1141.
  94. Reddy VY, Neužil P, Musikantow D, et al. Transcatheter Bariatric Embolotherapy for Weight Reduction in Obesity. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020; 76:2305.
  95. Hafezi-Nejad N, Bailey CR, Gunn AJ, Weiss CR. Weight Loss after Left Gastric Artery Embolization: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2019; 30:1593.
  96. Weiss CR, Abiola GO, Fischman AM, et al. Bariatric Embolization of Arteries for the Treatment of Obesity (BEAT Obesity) Trial: Results at 1 Year. Radiology 2019; 291:792.
  97. Horgan S, Jacobsen G, Weiss GD, et al. Incisionless revision of post-Roux-en-Y bypass stomal and pouch dilation: multicenter registry results. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2010; 6:290.
  98. Ryou M, Mullady DK, Lautz DB, Thompson CC. Pilot study evaluating technical feasibility and early outcomes of second-generation endosurgical platform for treatment of weight regain after gastric bypass surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2009; 5:450.
  99. Ghiassi S, Higa K, Chang S, et al. Conversion of standard Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to distal bypass for weight loss failure and metabolic syndrome: 3-year follow-up and evolution of technique to reduce nutritional complications. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2018; 14:554.
  100. Golomb I, Ben David M, Glass A, et al. Long-term Metabolic Effects of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy. JAMA Surg 2015; 150:1051.
  101. Casillas RA, Um SS, Zelada Getty JL, et al. Revision of primary sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: indications and outcomes from a high-volume center. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2016; 12:1817.
  102. O'Brien PE, MacDonald L, Anderson M, et al. Long-term outcomes after bariatric surgery: fifteen-year follow-up of adjustable gastric banding and a systematic review of the bariatric surgical literature. Ann Surg 2013; 257:87.
  103. Puzziferri N, Roshek TB 3rd, Mayo HG, et al. Long-term follow-up after bariatric surgery: a systematic review. JAMA 2014; 312:934.
  104. Belachew M, Legrand M, Vincenti V V, et al. Laparoscopic Placement of Adjustable Silicone Gastric Band in the Treatment of Morbid Obesity: How to Do It. Obes Surg 1995; 5:66.
  105. O'Brien PE, Brown WA, Smith A, et al. Prospective study of a laparoscopically placed, adjustable gastric band in the treatment of morbid obesity. Br J Surg 1999; 86:113.
  106. O'Brien PE. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a real option for a real problem. ANZ J Surg 2003; 73:562.
  107. Payne JH, DeWind LT. Surgical treatment of obesity. Am J Surg 1969; 118:141.
  108. Kamiński JP, Maker VK, Maker AV. Management of patients with abdominal malignancy after remote jejunoileal bypass: surgical considerations decades later. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 217:929.
  109. Halverson JD, Wise L, Wazna MF, Ballinger WF. Jejunoileal bypass for morbid obesity. A critical appraisal. Am J Med 1978; 64:461.
  110. Clayman RV, Williams RD. Oxalate urolithiasis following jejunoileal bypass. Surg Clin North Am 1979; 59:1071.
  111. Kroyer JM, Talbert WM Jr. Morphologic liver changes in intestinal bypass patients. Am J Surg 1980; 139:855.
  112. Griffen WO Jr, Bivins BA, Bell RM. The decline and fall of the jejunoileal bypass. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1983; 157:301.
  113. Deitel M, Shahi B, Anand PK, et al. Long-term Outcome in a Series of Jejunoileal Bypass Patients. Obes Surg 1993; 3:247.
  114. Miller K, Pump A, Hell E. Vertical banded gastroplasty versus adjustable gastric banding: prospective long-term follow-up study. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2007; 3:84.
  115. Balsiger BM, Poggio JL, Mai J, et al. Ten and more years after vertical banded gastroplasty as primary operation for morbid obesity. J Gastrointest Surg 2000; 4:598.
  116. Nightengale ML, Sarr MG, Kelly KA, et al. Prospective evaluation of vertical banded gastroplasty as the primary operation for morbid obesity. Mayo Clin Proc 1991; 66:773.
  117. Sugerman HJ, Londrey GL, Kellum JM, et al. Weight loss with vertical banded gastroplasty and Roux-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity with selective versus random assignment. Am J Surg 1989; 157:93.
  118. Benotti PN, Forse RA. Safety and long-term efficacy of revisional surgery in severe obesity. Am J Surg 1996; 172:232.
  119. van Gemert WG, van Wersch MM, Greve JW, Soeters PB. Revisional surgery after failed vertical banded gastroplasty: restoration of vertical banded gastroplasty or conversion to gastric bypass. Obes Surg 1998; 8:21.
  120. Nguyen NT, Masoomi H, Magno CP, et al. Trends in use of bariatric surgery, 2003-2008. J Am Coll Surg 2011; 213:261.
  121. Alalwan AA, Friedman J, Park H, et al. US national trends in bariatric surgery: A decade of study. Surgery 2021; 170:13.
  122. Wittgrove AC, Clark GW, Tremblay LJ. Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass, Roux-en-Y: Preliminary Report of Five Cases. Obes Surg 1994; 4:353.
  123. Farrell TM, Haggerty SP, Overby DW, et al. Clinical application of laparoscopic bariatric surgery: an evidence-based review. Surg Endosc 2009; 23:930.
  124. Schauer P, Ikramuddin S, Hamad G, Gourash W. The learning curve for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is 100 cases. Surg Endosc 2003; 17:212.
  125. Mun EC, Blackburn GL, Matthews JB. Current status of medical and surgical therapy for obesity. Gastroenterology 2001; 120:669.
  126. Guedea ME, Arribas del Amo D, Solanas JA, et al. Results of biliopancreatic diversion after five years. Obes Surg 2004; 14:766.
  127. Mason EE. Vertical banded gastroplasty for obesity. Arch Surg 1982; 117:701.
  128. Sugerman HJ, Kellum JM Jr, DeMaria EJ, Reines HD. Conversion of failed or complicated vertical banded gastroplasty to gastric bypass in morbid obesity. Am J Surg 1996; 171:263.
Topic 88536 Version 38.0