Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28664438›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2018

Transoral outlet reduction with full thickness endoscopic suturing for weight regain after gastric bypass: a large multicenter international experience and meta-analysis.

Eric J Vargas, Fateh Bazerbachi, Monika Rizk, Tarun Rustagi, Andres Acosta, Erik B Wilson, Todd Wilson, Manoel Galvao Neto, Natan Zundel, Manpreet S Mundi and 12 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Metabolic and Bariatric Endoscopy: A Mini-Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Eric J VargasGastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Fateh BazerbachiGastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Monika RizkGastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Tarun RustagiGastroenterology and Hepatology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Andres AcostaGastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Erik B WilsonSurgery, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Todd WilsonSurgery, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Manoel Galvao NetoSurgery, Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami Beach, FL, USA.
Natan ZundelSurgery, Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami Beach, FL, USA.
Manpreet S MundiEndocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Maria L Collazo-ClavellEndocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Shah MeeraEndocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
H S Abu-LebdehEndocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Paul A LorentzEndocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Karen B GrothePsychiatry, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Matthew M ClarkPsychiatry, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Todd A KelloggSurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Travis J McKenzieSurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Michael L KendrickSurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mark D TopazianGastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Christopher J GostoutGastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Barham K Abu DayyehGastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. AbuDayyeh.Barham@mayo.edu.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USMayo Clinic · USFlorida International University · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USUniversity of New Mexico · US

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS UL1 Supplement - Dr. Timothy Curry)UL1TR002377 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI VESNA D GAROVIC · 2017 to 2026
$78.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002377
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsMany patients who undergo bariatric surgery will experience weight regain and effective strategies are needed to help these patients. A dilated gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJA) has been associated with weight recidivism after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (RYGB). Endoscopic transoral outlet reduction (TORe) with a full thickness endoscopic suturing device (Overstitch, Apollo Endosurgery, Austin, TX) is a minimally invasive therapeutic option. The primary aim of this project was to examine the safety and long-term efficacy data from three bariatric surgery centers and to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature.

methodsPatients who underwent TORe with the Overstitch device from Jan 2013 to Nov 2016 at 3 participating bariatric surgery centers were included in the multicenter analysis. For the systematic review and meta-analysis, a comprehensive search of multiple English databases was conducted. Random effects model was used.

results130 consecutive patients across three centers underwent TORe with an endolumenal suturing device. These patients (mean age 47; mean BMI 36.8) had experienced 24.6% weight regain from nadir weight after RYGB. Average weight lost at 6, 12, and 18 months after TORe was 9.31 ± 6.7 kg (N = 84), 7.75 ± 8.4  kg (N = 70), 8 ± 8.8 kg (N = 46) (p < 0.01 for all three time points), respectively. The meta-analysis included 330 patients. The pooled weight lost at 12 months was 8.4 kg (95% CI 6.5-10.3) with no significant heterogeneity across included studies (p = 0.07). Overall, 14% of patients experienced nausea, 18% had pain and 8% required a repeat EGD. No serious adverse events reported.

conclusionWhen implemented as part of a multidisciplinary intervention, TORe using endolumenal suturing is safe, reproducible, and effective approach to manage weight recidivism after RYGB and should be utilized early in the management algorithm of these patients.

Indexed as

Gastric BypassSuture TechniquesWeight GainAdultEndoscopyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedObesity, MorbidRecurrenceReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBariatric surgeryEndoscopicRevision

Identifiers

PMID28664438
PMCPMC9707293
OpenAlexW2730750535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.