SynthesisObesity surgery2025
Calibration Bougie Size Selection in Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Obesity surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement and precision of an AI-based measurement tool during robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Post-operative Metabolic Adaptation and its Influence on Long-Term Recurrent Weight Gain After Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Beyond the Procedure: Revisiting the Technical Determinants of Sleeve Gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.Journal of metabolic and bariatric surgery · 2026Review
- A Phase-Based, Multidisciplinary Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Bariatric Procedures: The EUropean PErioperative MEdical Networking (EUPEMEN) Collaborative for Obesity Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSleeve gastrectomy has emerged as a leading bariatric procedure due to its effectiveness in inducing significant weight loss and improving obesity-related comorbidities. The calibration bougie size is a critical technical factor that influences outcomes, yet no universal consensus exists regarding optimal sizing.
methodsA systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) were searched for studies examining bougie size in sleeve gastrectomy published between January 2000 and September 2024. Primary outcomes included weight loss efficacy, complication rates, and patient satisfaction.
resultsThirty-five studies with 13,450 patients were included. Bougie sizes ranged from 32 to 50 Fr, with most surgeons utilizing 34-40 Fr. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that smaller bougie sizes (32-36 Fr) were associated with greater excess weight loss (pooled mean difference: 6.7%, 95% CI: 3.2-10.2, p < 0.001) but higher rates of strictures (OR: 2.14, 95% CI: 1.36-3.37, p = 0.001) and gastroesophageal reflux (OR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.12-2.78, p = 0.015). Mid-range bougie sizes (36-40 Fr) showed intermediate results for both weight loss and complications. Patient-specific factors including baseline BMI, comorbidities, and anatomical variations significantly influenced outcomes, with bougie size having greater impact in patients with lower baseline BMI.
conclusionsThis network meta-analysis identifies that bougie size significantly impacts both weight loss and complication rates following sleeve gastrectomy. While mid-range bougie sizes (36-40 Fr) may balance weight loss efficacy and safety for many patients, bougie selection should be individualized based on patient characteristics, surgeon experience, and institutional protocols. Prospective studies are needed to establish evidence-based guidelines for personalized bougie size selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40543001What 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.