PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2020; 08(04): E558-E565
DOI: 10.1055/a-1120-8350
Original article

Outcomes of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty; how does it compare to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Babu P. Mohan‡
1   Internal Medicine, University of Arizona, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona, United States
,
Ravishankar Asokkumar‡
2   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
,
Shahab R. Khan
3   Section of Gastroenterology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, United States
,
Rajesh Kotagiri
1   Internal Medicine, University of Arizona, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona, United States
,
Gurusravanan Kutti Sridharan
1   Internal Medicine, University of Arizona, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona, United States
,
Saurabh Chandan
4   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
,
Naveen PG. Ravikumar
5   Internal Medicine, University at Buffalo, Buffalo General Hospital, Buffalo, New York, United States
,
Suresh Ponnada
6   Internal Medicine, Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, Roanoke, Virginia, United States
,
Mahendran Jayaraj
7   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
,
Douglas G. Adler
8   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a novel moderately invasive technique in endo-bariatrics as compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Data is limited as to its efficacy and safety.

Methods We searched multiple databases from inception through August 2019 to identify studies that reported on ESG in the treatment of obesity. Our goals were to calculate the pooled rates of total weight loss (%TWL), excess weight loss (%EWL), and body mass index (BMI) at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months with ESG. We included studies that reported on LSG, in a similar time frame as ESG, and compared the 12-month outcomes.

Results From eight studies on ESG (1815 patients), the pooled rates of %TWL at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months were 8.7 (7.2–10.2), 15.3 (14.1–16.6) and 17.1 (15.1–19.1), respectively. The pooled rates of %EWL at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months were 31.7 (29.3–34.1), 59.4 (57–61.8) and 63 (51.3–74.6), respectively. The pooled rates of BMI at 1 m, 6 m, and 12 m were 32.6 (31–34.3), 30.4 (29–31.8) and 30 (27.7–32.3, I2 = 97), respectively. At 12 months, the pooled %TWL, %EWL and BMI with LSG (7 studies, 2179 patients) were 30.5 (27.4–33.5), 69.3 (60.1–78.4) and 29.3 (27.1–31.4) respectively. On comparison analysis, %TWL with LSG was superior to ESG (P = 0.001). %EWL and BMI were comparable. All adverse events, bleeding and gastro-esophageal reflux disease were significantly lower with ESG when compared to LSG.

Conclusion ESG demonstrates acceptable weight loss parameters and seems to have a better safety profile when compared to LSG.

Supplementary materials



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 12. September 2019

Angenommen: 23. Januar 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
23. März 2020

© 2020. Owner and Copyright ©

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References

  • 1 World Health Organization. World Health Organization obesity and overweight fact sheet. 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Look ARG. Eight-year weight losses with an intensive lifestyle intervention: the look AHEAD study. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md) 2014; 22: 5-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Yanovski SZ, Yanovski JA. Long-term drug treatment for obesity: a systematic and clinical review. JAMA 2014; 311: 74-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Corcelles R, Boules M, Froylich D. et al. Total weight loss as the outcome measure of choice after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obesity Surgery 2016; 26: 1794-1798
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Arterburn DE, Courcoulas AP. Bariatric surgery for obesity and metabolic conditions in adults. BMJ 2014; 349: g3961
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fobi MA. Surgical treatment of obesity: a review. J Nat Med Assoc 2004; 96: 61-75
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 1 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Estimate of bariatric surgery numbers, 2011–2017.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Peterli R, Wolnerhanssen BK, Peters T. et al. Effect of Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss in patients with morbid obesity: the SM-BOSS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018; 319: 255-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ponce J, DeMaria EJ, Nguyen NT. et al. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery estimation of bariatric surgery procedures in 2015 and surgeon workforce in the United States. Surg Obes Related Dis 2016; 12: 1637-1639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Europ J Epidemiol 2010; 25: 603-605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Thompson SG, Pocock SJ. Can meta-analyses be trusted?. Lancet 1991; 338: 1127-1130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Mohan BP, Chandan S, Garg R. et al. Lumen-apposing metal stents, fully covered self-expanding metal stents, and biodegradable stents in the management of benign of GI strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2019; 53: 560-573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mohan BP, Jayaraj M, Asokkumar R. et al. Lumen apposing metal stents in drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis, are they any better than plastic stents? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published since the revised Atlanta classification of pancreatic fluid collections. Endosc Ultrasound 2019; 8: 82-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mohan BP, Shakhatreh M, Dugyala S. et al. EUS versus percutaneous management of postoperative pancreatic fluid collection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound 2019; 8: 298-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mohan BP, Shakhatreh M, Garg R. et al. Comparison of Franseen and fork-tip needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid mass lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound 2019; 8: 382-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Contr Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. et al. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Higgins J, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re‐evaluation of random‐effects meta‐analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 2009; 172: 137-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 2011; 342: d549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mohan BP, Adler DG. Heterogeneity in systematic review and meta-analysis: how to read between the numbers. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 902-903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kanwal F, White D. Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses; in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 1184-1186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R. et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence; inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1294-1302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Easterbrook PJ, Gopalan R, Berlin JA. et al. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867-872
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000; 56: 455-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Abu Dayyeh BK, Acosta A, Camilleri M. et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty alters gastric physiology and induces loss of body weight in obese individuals. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 37-43.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hill C, El Zein M, Agnihotri A. et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty: the learning curve. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E900-E904
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Lopez-Nava G, Sharaiha RZ, Vargas EJ. et al. Endoscopic Sleeve gastroplasty for obesity: a multicenter study of 248 patients with 24 months follow-up. Obesity Surg 2017; 27: 2649-2655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fayad L, Adam A, Schweitzer M. et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a case-matched study. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 782-788
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sharaiha RZ, Kumta NA, Saumoy M. et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty significantly reduces body mass index and metabolic complications in obese patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 504-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kumar N, Abu Dayyeh BK, Lopez-Nava BG. et al. Endoscopic sutured gastroplasty: procedure evolution from first-in-man cases through current technique. Surg Endosc 2018; 32: 2159-2164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Fayad L, Cheskin LJ, Adam A. et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty versus intragastric balloon insertion: efficacy, durability, and safety. Endoscopy 2019; 06: 06
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Alqahtani A, Al-Darwish A, Mahmoud AE. et al. Short-term outcomes of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty in 1000 consecutive patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 1132-1138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lopez-Nava G, Galvao MP, Bautista-Castano I. et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty for obesity treatment: two years of experience. Brazn Arch Digest Surg 2017; 30: 18-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Saumoy M, Schneider Y, Zhou XK. et al. A single-operator learning curve analysis for the endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 442-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Sartoretto A, Sui Z, Hill C. et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) Is a reproducible and effective endoscopic bariatric therapy suitable for widespread clinical adoption: a large, international multicenter study. Obesity Surg 2018; 28: 1812-1821
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Morales-Conde S, DelAgua IA, Moreno AB. et al. Postoperative pain after conventional laparoscopic versus single-port sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled pilot study. Surgr Obes Rel Dis 2017; 13: 608-613
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Bhandari M, Jain S, Mathur W. et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty is an effective and safe minimally invasive approach for treatment of obesity: first Indian experience. Digest Endosc 2019; DOI: 10.1111/den.13508.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Barrichello S, Hourneaux de Moura DT. et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty in the management of overweight and obesity: an international multicenter study. Gastrointestl Endosc 2019; 90: 770-780
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Zachariah SK, Chang PC, Ooi AS. et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity: 5 years experience from an Asian center of excellence. Obes Surg 2013; 23: 939-946
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Wang X, Chang XS, Gao L. et al. Effectiveness of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for weight loss and obesity-associated co-morbidities: a 3-year outcome from Mainland Chinese patients. Surg Obes Rel Dis 2016; 12: 1305-1311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Lemaître F, Léger P, Nedelcu M. et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in the South Pacific. Retrospective evaluation of 510 patients in a single institution. Int J Surg 2016; 30: 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Golomb I, Ben David M, Glass A. et al. Long-term metabolic effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. JAMA Surg 2015; 150: 1051-1057
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 El-Matbouly MA, Khidir N, Touny HA. et al. A 5-year follow-up study of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy among morbidly obese adolescents: does it improve body image and prevent and treat diabetes?. Obes Surg 2018; 28: 513-519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Alvarenga ES, Lo MenzoE, Szomstein S. et al. Safety and efficacy of 1020 consecutive laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies performed as a primary treatment modality for morbid obesity. A single-center experience from the metabolic and bariatric surgical accreditation quality and improvement program. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 2673-2678
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Talebpour M, Sadid D, Talebpour A. et al. Comparison of short-term effectiveness and postoperative complications: laparoscopic gastric plication vs laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg 2018; 28: 996-1001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Gagner M, Hutchinson C, Rosenthal R. Fifth International Consensus Conference: current status of sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Rel Dis 2016; 12: 750-756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Novikov AA, Afaneh C, Saumoy M. et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and laparoscopic band for weight loss: how do they compare?. J Gastrointest Surg 2018; 22: 267-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Hedjoudje A, Dayyeh BA, Cheskin LJ. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.022.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Li P, Ma B, Gong S. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty for obesity patients: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 1253-1260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar