ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2016
Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy versus Laparoscopic Banded Sleeve Gastrectomy: First Prospective Pilot Randomized Study.
Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04354532 (Laparoscopic Banded Sleeve Gastrectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Laparoscopic Banded Sleeve Gastrectomy: Single-Centre Experience With A 4-Year Follow-Up
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary Banded Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review.Obesity surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Naturally Banded Sleeve Gastrectomy Vs Non-Banded Sleeve Gastrectomy, Two Years Follow up, Controlled Clinical Trial.Obesity surgery · 2026Trial
- Banded Sleeve Gastrectomy Improves Weight Loss Compared to Nonbanded Sleeve: Midterm Results from a Prospective Randomized Study.Journal of obesity · 2020Trial
- Evaluating The Impact of Ring Augmentation In Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Propensity-weighted Cohort Study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Comparison of three different anastomotic methods of sleeve gastrectomy with transit bipartition using an obese rodent model.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Comparison of Sleeve Volume Between Banded and Non-banded Sleeve Gastrectomy: Midterm Effect on Weight and Food Tolerance-a Retrospective Study.Obesity surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of the mid-term outcomes of banded and non-banded sleeve gastrectomy: safety, food tolerance, and weight regain.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Metabolic surgery for type II diabetes: an update.Acta diabetologica · 2021Review
- Neurocognitive and Psychopathological Predictors of Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery: A 4-Year Follow-Up Study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
- Banded Sleeve Gastrectomy and One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass/Mini-gastric Bypass for Treatment of Obesity: a Retrospective Cohort Comparative Study with 6 years follow-up.Obesity surgery · 2020Article
- Banded Sleeve Gastrectomy: Better Long-Term Results? A Long-Term Cohort Study Until 5 Years Follow-Up in Obese and Superobese Patients.Obesity surgery · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction. The placement of ring or band around the gastric tube might prevent the dilation after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG). We describe the first randomized study comparing LSG and Laparoscopic Banded Sleeve Gastrectomy (LBSG). Material and Method. Fifty obese patients were enrolled in the study between January 2014 and January 2015. We analysed differences in operative time, complication rate, mortality, and BMI between the two groups over a period of 12 months. Results. Twenty-five patients received LSG (group A) and 25 LBSG (group B). The mean preoperative BMI was 47.3 ± 6.58 kg/m(2) and 44.95 ± 5.85 kg/m(2), respectively, in the two groups. There was no statistical relevant difference in operative time. No intraoperative complications occurred. Mean BMI registered after 3, 6, and 12 months in groups A and B, respectively, were 37.86 ± 5.72 kg/m(2) and 37.58 ± 6.21 kg/m(2) (p = 0.869), 33.64 ± 6.08 kg/m(2) and 32.03 ± 5.24 kg/m(2) (p = 0.325), and 29.72 ± 4.40 kg/m(2) and 27.42 ± 4.47 kg/m(2) (p = 0.186); no statistical relevant difference was registered between the two groups. Conclusion. LBSG is a safe and feasible procedure. The time required for the device positioning did not influence significantly the surgical time. The results of bodyweight loss did not document any statistically significant differences among the two groups, even though LBSG group showed a mean BMI slightly lower than that of the control group.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.