SynthesisObesity surgery2026
Comparative Safety of Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Meta-Analysis of over 1.1 Million Patients.
Synthesis in Obesity surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty (ESG) has emerged as a less invasive bariatric option compared to Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG). However, direct comparisons of their safety profiles remain limited.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Comparative studies evaluating short-term (≤ 30-days) safety outcomes of ESG versus LSG in adults with obesity were included. Primary outcomes were major and overall adverse events. Secondary outcomes included procedure-related complications, readmission, mortality, and organ-specific adverse events.
resultsEleven observational studies encompassing 1,117,309 patients (ESG: 11,890; LSG: 1,105,419) were included. Major adverse events showed no significant difference between ESG and LSG (RR = 1.11; 95% CI: 0.94–1.31; p = 0.22). ESG was associated with significantly lower risk of gastric leak (RR = 0.06; 95% CI: 0.01–0.47; p = 0.007), GERD (RR = 0.10; 95% CI: 0.02–0.53; p = 0.006), and hospital stay (MD = − 0.90 days; 95% CI: −0.93 to − 0.87; p < 0.00001). However, ESG had a higher risk of sepsis (RR = 2.49; 95% CI: 1.21–5.13; p = 0.01) and readmission (RR = 1.37; 95% CI: 1.22–1.53; p < 0.00001). Mortality did not differ significantly.
conclusionESG demonstrates a comparable short-term safety profile to LSG, with advantages in reduced gastric leak, GERD, and length of hospital stay. ESG may serve as a viable, less invasive alternative to LSG in appropriately selected patients. Further randomized studies are warranted to assess long-term outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41998484What 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.