SynthesisObesity surgery2025
Meta-Analysis of Gastric Band Revision to Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Outcomes, Risks, and Individualized Treatment Selection in Revisional Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: A Narrative Review.Health science reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate comparative outcomes of gastric band revision to sleeve gastrectomy (rSG) versus to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB).
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Web of Science and bibliographic reference lists were conducted. All comparative studies reporting outcomes of gastric band revision to SG or RYGB were included, and their risk of bias were assessed. Percent excess body weight loss (%EWL) at 1-year and 2-years, resolution of co-morbidities, postoperative morbidities and mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters.
resultsNineteen comparative studies reporting a total of 19,532 patients who had gastric band revision to SG (n-=10,646) or RYGB (n = 8,886) were included. rRYGB was associated with significantly higher %EWL at 1-year (MD -7.69; 95% CI-12.02- -3.35, p = 0.0005), %EWL at 2-years (MD -11.18; 95% CI -21.41-0.95, p = 0.03), and resolution of co-morbidities (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.27-0.86, p = 0.01) compared with revision to SG. However, rSG was associated with significantly lower risk of overall postoperative morbidities (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.34-0.74, p = 0.0005), postoperative leak (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.49-0.83, p = 0.0008), or postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.26-0.98, p = 0.04). There was no significant difference in mortality (RD 0.00; 95% CI-0.00-0.00, p = 0.39) between two groups.
conclusionsThe meta-analysis of best available evidence demonstrated that gastric band revision to RYGB is associated with significantly higher %EWL and resolution of co-morbidities compared with its revision to SG. However, rRYGB is associated with higher risk of postoperative complications considering its complexity. Careful counselling of the patients is crucial to establish the best approach for individual patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41206430What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.