Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 12, 2025
One-anastomosis Gastric Bypass OAGB in Rats
Published on: November 10, 2018
Primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus gastric bypass: a propensity-matched comparison of 30-day outcomes
1Medical Sciences Divisional Office, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Background:
Bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for obesity. There is uncertainty regarding rates of adverse outcomes between the most common methods: laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).
Objectives:
To compare rates of readmission, reoperation, intervention, unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission, all-cause and procedure-related mortality, and postoperative complications at 30 days between LRYGB and LSG.
Setting:
Retrospective, observational, multicenter registry.
Methods:
We identified 611,619 patients from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) data registry between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018 (447,326 [73.1%] LSG; 164,293 [26.9%] LRYGB).
Results:
Adverse events were more common after LRYGB (readmission: 3% with LSG versus 5.9% with LRYGB [P < .001; odds ratio {OR}, LSG/LRYGB = .489]; intervention: .9% with LSG versus 2.4% with LRYGB [P < .001; OR, LSG/LRYGB = .357]; reoperation: .8% with LSG versus 2.3% with LRYGB [P < .001; OR, LSG/LRYGB = .363]; unplanned ICU admission: .52% with LSG versus 1.1% with LRYGB [P < .001; OR, LSG/LRYGB = .454]; all-cause mortality: .07% with LSG versus .15% with LRYGB [P < .001; OR, LSG/LRYGB = .489]; procedure-related mortality: .04% with LSG versus .08% with LRYGB [P < .001; OR, LSG/LRYGB = .446]; Clavien-Dindo I: .20% with LSG versus .63% with LRYGB [P < .001; OR, LSG/LRYGB = .317]; Clavien-Dindo II: .70% with LSG versus 1.3% with LRYGB [P < .001; OR, LSG/LRYGB = .527]; Clavien-Dindo III: 3.3% with LSG versus 6.6% with LRYGB [P < .001; OR, LSG/LRYGB = .481]; Clavien-Dindo IV: .36% with LSG versus .76% with LRYGB [P < .001; OR, LSG/LRYGB = .466]; and Clavien-Dindo V: .07% with LSG versus .15% with LRYGB [P < .001; OR, LSG/LRYGB = .488]). Surgery type was among the strongest independent predictors of adverse events, and LRYGB conferred higher adjusted odds of all adverse outcomes (all-cause mortality: OR, LRYGB/LSG = 1.791 [P < .001]; procedure-related mortality: OR, LRYGB/LSG = 1.979 [P < .001]; readmission: OR, LRYGB/LSG = 1.921 [P < .001]; unplanned ICU admission: OR, LRYGB/LSG = 1.870 [P < .001]; intervention: OR, LRYGB/LSG = 2.662 [P < .001]; reoperation: OR, LRYGB/LSG = 2.646 [P < .001]; and Clavien-Dindo grade: OR, LRYGB/LSG = 2.007 [P < .001]).
Conclusion:
The rates of 30-day adverse outcomes are lower after LSG compared with after LRYGB. LRYGB independently conferred increased odds of adverse outcomes compared with LSG, and surgery type was among the strongest predictors of adverse outcomes.
