Abstract
Background:
Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most common primary bariatric operation performed in the United States. Its relative technical ease, combined with a decreased risk for anatomic and malabsorptive complications make LSG an attractive option compared to laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB) for many patients and surgeons. However, emerging evidence for progressive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) after LSG, and the inferior weight loss in many studies, suggests that the enthusiasm for LSG requires reassessment. We hypothesized that patient satisfaction and quality of life (QoL) may be lower after LSG compared to LGB because of these differences.
Methods:
We distributed a survey querying weight-loss outcomes, complications, foregut symptoms, QoL, and overall satisfaction to patients who underwent bariatric operations at our institution between 2000 and 2020 and who had electronic mail contact information available. Mean follow-up was 2.75 ± 2.41 years for LGB patients and 3.37 ± 2.18 (P = .021) years for LSG patients. We compared these groups for weight-loss outcomes, changes in foregut symptoms, gastrointestinal QoL, postbariatric QoL, and overall satisfaction using appropriate statistical tests.
Results:
Among 323 respondents, 126 underwent LGB and 197 underwent LSG. LGB patients had larger body mass index (BMI) reduction than LSG patients (−17.16 ± 9.07 kg/m2 versus −14.87 ± 7.4 kg/m2, P = .023). LGB patients reported less reflux (P = .003), with decreased heartburn (P < .0001) and regurgitation (P = .0027). However, a greater proportion of LGB patients reported at least one complication (P = .025). Despite this, more LGB patients reported satisfaction (92.86%) than LSG patients (73.6%).
Conclusion:
LGB patients are significantly more likely to be satisfied than LSG patients. Factors contributing to the higher level of satisfaction include less GERD and better BMI decrease.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
