Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38389592›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Banded Versus Non-banded Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abdulkreem Al-Juhani, Galal F Sharaf, Eman M Alyaseen, Abdullah Alkurdi, Ammar S Azhari, Saleh Hussain Alshaiban, Abdulelah A Otaif, Abdullah W Abumadian, Alaa J Alshawi, Yara A Aldarami

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

10 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.

Abdulkreem Al-JuhaniSurgeon, King Abdulaziz University Faculty of Medicine, Jeddah, SAU.
Galal F SharafGeneral Surgery, University of Queensland, Cairo, EGY.
Eman M AlyaseenMedicine and Medical Science, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, BHR.
Abdullah AlkurdiMedicine, AL-Rayan Colleges, Madina, SAU.
Ammar S AzhariMedicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, SAU.
Saleh Hussain AlshaibanMedicine, Najran University, Najran, SAU.
Abdulelah A OtaifMedicine, Jazan University, Jazan, SAU.
Abdullah W AbumadianMedicine, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, SAU.
Alaa J AlshawiMedicine, Ibn Sina National College For Medical Studies, Jeddah, SAU.
Yara A AldaramiMedicine, King Khalid University, Abha, SAU.
Jazan University · SAThe University of Queensland · AUApplied LifeSciences & Systems (United States) · USArabian Gulf University · BHIbn Sina National College for Medical Studies · SAKing Abdulaziz University · SAKing Khalid University · SANajran University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standard bariatric surgeries include biliopancreatic diversion (BPD), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and adjustable gastric banding (AGB). Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is currently favored due to safety, efficacy, and shorter operation time. However, previous literature shows 75.6% weight regain post LSG. Introducing Laparoscopic band sleeve gastrectomy (LBSG) to maintain pouch size is proposed to improve outcomes and reduce weight regain. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of LSG vs. LBSG in obese patients. A comprehensive search strategy was executed to identify pertinent literature comparing LBSG and LSG in obese patients. Eligible studies underwent independent screening, and pertinent data were systematically extracted. The analysis employed pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous variables, each accompanied by their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our systematic review and meta-analysis included 15 studies encompassing 3929 patients. Regarding body mass index (BMI), at six, 12, and 24 months, no substantial differences were found between LBSG and LSG groups (p < 0.05). Still, at 36 months, LBSG exhibited significantly lower BMI than LSG (MD = -2.07 [-3.84, -0.29], p = 0.02). Excess Weight Loss (EWL) favored LBSG at 12, 24, and 36 months with MD of 3.30 [0.42, 6.18], 4.13 [1.44, 6.81], and 18.43 [9.44, 27.42], p = 0.02, 0.003, < 0.00001, respectively). Operative time did not significantly differ between the procedures (MD = 2.95, 95%CI [-0.06, 5.95], p = 0.05). Resolution of comorbidities, overall complications, post-operative bleeding, reflux, and early complications did not significantly differ between LBSG and LSG. However, LBSG showed higher post-operative regurgitation than LSG (RR = 2.38, 95%CI [1.25, 4.54], p = 0.008). LBSG showed a substantial decrease in BMI at three-year follow-up and higher EWL at one, two, and three years. However, LBSG procedures exhibited a higher incidence of post-operative regurgitation symptoms than LSG. No substantial differences were noted in BMI at six, 12, or 24 months, EWL at six months, operative time, bleeding, reflux, or overall complications.

Indexed as

bariatric surgerylaparoscopic band sleeve gastrectomylaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomylbsgsystematic review and meta analysis

Identifiers

PMID38389592
PMCPMC10883259
OpenAlexW4391124989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.