Comparative Effectiveness and Safety Between Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty and Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Meta-analysis of 6775 Individuals with Obesity.

introductionEndoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a novel endoscopic bariatric therapy that complements current medical and surgical therapeutic offerings for weight management and fills an unmet need. Few meta-analyses compared ESG to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, these studies relied on indirect evidence derived from non-comparative studies. Comparative effectiveness data derived from direct comparative studies is needed. We performed a meta-analysis of studies that directly compared ESG with LSG.

methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted. Single-arm studies were excluded. Pooled mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained within a random-effect model.

resultsSeven studies with 6,775 patients (3,413 with ESG vs. 3,362 with LSG) were included. There were significant differences in 6-month (MD - 7.48; 95% CI - 10.44, - 4.52; P < 0.00001), 12-month (MD - 9.90; 95% CI - 10.59, - 9.22; P < 0.00001), and 24-month (MD - 7.63; 95% CI - 11.31, - 3.94; P < 0.0001) TBWL% favoring LSG over ESG. There was a trend toward lower incidence of adverse events with ESG compared to LSG but did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.23-1.11, P = 0.09). The incidence of new-onset gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was significantly lower after ESG compared to LSG, 1.3% vs. 17.9%, respectively (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.53, P = 0.006).

conclusionsESG achieved clinically adequate but lower short- and mid-term weight loss when compared to LSG, with fewer adverse events, including GERD. Given the stomach-sparing nature of ESG and acceptable safety profile, it provides an acceptable alternative to LSG for patients with mild-to-moderate obesity.