Prepregnancy Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review, pairwise, and network meta-analysis of obstetrical and neonatal outcomes.

This study aimed to systematically investigate a wide range of obstetrical and neonatal outcomes with respect to 2 types of prepregnancy bariatric surgery, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy, through: (1) providing a meta-analysis of the effect of bariatric surgery (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs no surgery and, separately, sleeve gastrectomy vs no surgery) on adverse obstetrical and neonatal outcomes, and (2) comparing the relative benefit of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy using both conventional and network meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Embase systematically from inception up to April 30, 2021. Studies reporting on pregnancies' obstetrical and neonatal outcomes with respect to 2 types of prepregnancy bariatric surgery-Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy-were included. The included studies either indirectly compared between the procedure and controls or directly compared between the 2 procedures. We performed a systematic review followed by pairwise and network meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. In the pairwise analysis, multiple obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were tabulated and compared between 3 groups: (1) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs controls, (2) sleeve gastrectomy vs controls, and (3) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy. Primary outcomes included small for gestational age, large for gestational age, gestational hypertension/preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes mellitus. Secondary outcomes included preterm birth, anemia, cesarean delivery, and biochemical profile. The random-effects model was used to pool the mean differences or odds ratios and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 value. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess individual study quality. To resolve inconclusive findings and to rank current treatments, network meta-analysis was conducted for the primary outcomes. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis approach and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) tool within the summary of findings table. A total of 20 studies were included, reporting on 40,108 pregnancies, of which 5194 underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 405 underwent sleeve gastrectomy, and 34,509 were controls. Compared with controls, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass increased the risk of small for gestational age infants (odds ratio, 2.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.77-3.70; I2, 29.1%; P<.00001), decreased the risk of large for gestational age infants (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.35; I2, 0%; P<.00001), decreased gestational hypertension/preeclampsia (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97; I2, 26.8%; P=.04), decreased gestational diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.81; I2, 32%; P=.008), increased maternal anemia (odds ratio, 2.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-4.79; I2, 40.5%; P<.001), increased neonatal intensive care unit admission (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.77; I2, 0%; P=.02), and decreased mean gestational weight gain (mean difference, -3.37 kg; 95% confidence interval, -5.62 to -1.11; I2, 65.3%; P=.003). Only 3 studies compared sleeve gastrectomy with controls, and found no significant differences in primary outcomes or in mean gestational weight gain. The network meta-analysis showed that Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (malabsorptive procedure) resulted in greater decrease of large for gestational age, gestational hypertension/preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes mellitus, and a greater increase in small for gestational age infants when compared with sleeve gastrectomy (restrictive procedure). However, the small number of studies, small number of sleeve gastrectomy patients, limited outcomes, and data heterogeneity resulted in low-to-moderate network GRADE of evidence. This network meta-analysis showed that Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, compared with sleeve gastrectomy, resulted in greater decrease in large for gestational age, gestational hypertension/preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes mellitus, but in greater increase in small for gestational age infants. Certainty of evidence in the network meta-analysis was of a low-to-moderate GRADE. Evidence is still lacking for periconception biochemical profile, congenital malformations, and reproductive health outcomes for both interventions; thus, future well-designed prospective studies are needed to further characterize these outcomes.

Mustafa HJ ，Javinani A ，Seif K ，Aghajani F ，Makar EJ ，Selhorst S ，Crimmins S ... -  《-》

Gestational weight gain below instead of within the guidelines per class of maternal obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of obstetrical and neonatal outcomes.

This study aimed to systematically investigate a wide range of obstetrical and neonatal outcomes as they relate to gestational weight gain less than the current Institute of Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines when compared with weight gain within the guideline range and to stratify outcomes by the class of obesity and by the type of study analysis. We systematically searched studies on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2009 to April 30, 2021. Studies reporting on obstetrical and neonatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies related to gestational weight gain less than the current Institute of Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines in comparison with weight gain within the guidelines among women with obesity overall (body mass index >30 kg/m2) and/or a specific class of obesity (I: body mass index, 30-34.9 kg/m2; II: body mass index, 35-39.9 kg/m2; and III: body mass index >40 kg/m2). Among the studies that met the inclusion criteria, multiple obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were tabulated and compared between pregnancies with weight gain less than recommended in the guidelines and those with weight gain within the guidelines, further classified by the class of obesity if applicable. Primary outcomes included small for gestational age neonates, large for gestational age neonates, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes mellitus. Secondary outcomes included cesarean delivery, preterm birth, postpartum weight retention, and composite neonatal morbidity. A meta-analysis of univariate and adjusted multivariate analysis studies was conducted. The random-effect model was used to pool the mean differences or odds ratios and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 value. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess individual study quality. A total of 54 studies reporting on 30,245,946 pregnancies were included of which 11,515,411 pregnancies were in the univariate analysis and 18,730,535 pregnancies were in the adjusted multivariate analysis. In the meta-analysis of univariate studies, compared with women who gained weight as recommended in the guidelines, those who gained less than the weight recommended in the guidelines had higher odds of having a small for gestational age neonate among those with obesity class I and II (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.45; I2=0%; P<.00001; and odds ratio, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.85; I2=0%; P<.00001, respectively). However, the incidence of small for gestational age neonates was below the expected limits (<10%) and was not associated with increased neonatal morbidity. Furthermore, after adjusting for covariates, that difference was not statistically significant anymore. The difference was not statistically significant for class III obesity. Following adjusted multivariate analysis, no significant differences in small for gestational age rates were noted for any classes of obesity between groups. Significantly lower odds for large for gestational age neonates were seen in the group with gestational weight gain less than the recommended guidelines among those with obesity class I, II, and III (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.73; I2=0%; P<.00001; odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.74; I2=0%; P<.00001; and odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.75; I2=34%; P<.00001, respectively), and similar findings were seen in the adjusted multivariate analysis. Women with weight gain less than the recommended guidelines had significantly lower odds for preeclampsia among those with obesity class I, II, and III (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.79; I2=0%; P<.00001; odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.91; I2=0%; P<.00001; and odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.94; I2=0%; P=.006, respectively), and similar findings were seen in the adjusted multivariate analysis. No significant differences were seen in gestational diabetes mellitus between groups. Regarding preterm birth, available univariate analysis studies only reported on overall obesity and mixed iatrogenic and spontaneous preterm birth showing a significant increase in the odds of preterm birth (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.43; I2=0%; P<.00001) among women with low weight gain, whereas the adjusted multivariate studies in overall obesity and in all 3 classes showed no significant differences in preterm birth between groups. Women with low weight gain had significantly lower odds for cesarean delivery in obesity class I, II, and III (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.81; I2=0%; P<.00001; odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.87; I2=0%; P<.00001; and odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.91; I2=0%; P<.00001, respectively), and similar findings were seen in the adjusted multivariate analysis. There was significantly lower odds for postpartum weight retention (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.82; I2=0%; P=.03) and lower odds for composite neonatal morbidity in the overall obesity group with low gestational weight gain (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.99; I2=19.6%; P=.04). Contrary to previous reports, the current systematic review and meta-analysis showed no significant increase in small for gestational age rates in pregnancies with weight gain below the current guidelines for all classes of maternal obesity. Furthermore, gaining less weight than recommended in the guidelines was associated with lower large for gestational age, preeclampsia, and cesarean delivery rates. Our study provides the evidence that the current recommended gestational weight gain range is high for all classes of obesity. These results provide pertinent information supporting the notion to revisit the current gestational weight gain recommendations for women with obesity and furthermore to classify them by the class of obesity rather than by an overall obesity category as is done in the current recommendations.

Mustafa HJ ，Seif K ，Javinani A ，Aghajani F ，Orlinsky R ，Alvarez MV ，Ryan A ，Crimmins S ... -  《-》

Comparative analysis of weight loss and resolution of comorbidities between laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on 18 studies.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy are the most common procedures performed in bariatric surgery and both have been demonstrated to have significant effectiveness in treating morbid obesity. However, comparative analysis of their effectiveness has not been well studied. This comparative analysis was conducted to determine whether Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy have the same mid- and long-term outcomes in weight loss, resolution of obesity comorbidities and adverse events (AEs) of treatment. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases from the establishment of the database to January 1, 2020 for both randomized control trials and non-randomised interventional studies that studied Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with respect to weight loss outcomes, resolution of obesity comorbidities and AEs of treatment. Standardised mean differences, risk ratios and odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to compare the outcomes of the groups. Two reviewers assessed the quality of the trials and extracted the data independently. All statistical analyses were performed using the standard statistical procedures in Review Manager 5.2. We included 20 studies (N = 2917 participants) in this meta-analysis. Our results showed no significant difference in excess weight loss between Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, with pooled Standardised mean differences of -0.16 (95% confidence interval: -0.52 to 0.19; P = 0.36) based on randomized control trials and 0.07 (95% confidence interval: -0.10 to 0.24; P = 0.41) based on non-randomised interventional studies. Further, the pooled results showed no significant differences in midterm and long-term weight loss outcomes between the comparative groups. Similarly, no significant difference was found in type 2 diabetes mellitus resolution. The pooled results indicated that patients receiving laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy experienced fewer postoperative complication and reoperation rates, with pooled risk ratios of 1.66 (95% confidence interval: 1.33 to 2.07; P < 0.00001) and 1.73 (95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 2.62; P = 0.01), respectively. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was superior to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in managing dyslipidemia, hypertension and gastroesophageal reflux disease. The present meta-analysis indicated that both Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy had the same effectiveness in resulting in excess weight loss and type 2 diabetes mellitus resolution. However, patients who received laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy experienced fewer postoperative complication and reoperation rates than those who received Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was superior in the management of dyslipidemia, hypertension and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Han Y ，Jia Y ，Wang H ，Cao L ，Zhao Y ... -  《-》

Maternal and neonatal outcomes after bariatric surgery; a systematic review and meta-analysis: do the benefits outweigh the risks?

Obesity during pregnancy is associated with a number of adverse obstetric outcomes that include gestational diabetes mellitus, macrosomia, and preeclampsia. Increasing evidence shows that bariatric surgery may decrease the risk of these outcomes. Our aim was to evaluate the benefits and risks of bariatric surgery in obese women according to obstetric outcomes. We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and PubMed from inception up to December 12, 2016. Studies were included if they evaluated patients who underwent bariatric surgery, reported subsequent pregnancy outcomes, and compared these outcomes with a control group. Two reviewers extracted study outcomes independently, and risk of bias was assessed with the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Pooled odds ratios for each outcome were estimated with the Dersimonian and Laird random effects model. After a review of 2616 abstracts, 20 cohort studies and approximately 2.8 million subjects (8364 of whom had bariatric surgery) were included in the metaanalysis. In our primary analysis, patients who underwent bariatric surgery showed reduced rates of gestational diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.37, number needed to benefit, 5), large-for-gestational-age infants (odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.59; number needed to benefit, 6), gestational hypertension (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.76; number needed to benefit, 11), all hypertensive disorders (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.53; number needed to benefit, 8), postpartum hemorrhage (odds ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-1.37; number needed to benefit, 21), and caesarean delivery rates (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.67; number needed to benefit, 9); however, group of patients showed an increase in small-for-gestational-age infants (odds ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-3.48; number needed to harm, 21), intrauterine growth restriction (odds ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-3.48; number needed to harm, 66), and preterm deliveries (odds ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.79; number needed to harm, 35) when compared with control subjects who were matched for presurgery body mass index. There were no differences in rates of preeclampsia, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, stillbirths, malformations, and neonatal death. Malabsorptive surgeries resulted in a greater increase in small-for-gestational-age infants (P=.0466) and a greater decrease in large-for-gestational-age infants (P=<.0001) compared with restrictive surgeries. There were no differences in outcomes when we used administrative databases vs clinical charts. Although bariatric surgery is associated with a reduction in the risk of several adverse obstetric outcomes, there is a potential for an increased risk of other important outcomes that should be considered when bariatric surgery is discussed with reproductive-age women.

Kwong W ，Tomlinson G ，Feig DS 《-》

EAES rapid guideline: systematic review, network meta-analysis, CINeMA and GRADE assessment, and European consensus on bariatric surgery-extension 2022.

The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery Bariatric Guidelines Group identified a gap in bariatric surgery recommendations with a structured, contextualized consideration of multiple bariatric interventions. To provide evidence-informed, transparent and trustworthy recommendations on the use of sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding, gastric plication, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch, one anastomosis gastric bypass, and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy in patients with severe obesity and metabolic diseases. Only laparoscopic procedures in adults were considered. A European interdisciplinary panel including general surgeons, obesity physicians, anesthetists, a psychologist and a patient representative informed outcome importance and minimal important differences. We conducted a systematic review and frequentist fixed and random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) using the graph theory approach for each outcome. We calculated the odds ratio or the (standardized) mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the CINeMA and GRADE methodologies. We considered the risk/benefit outcomes within a GRADE evidence to decision framework to arrive at recommendations, which were validated through an anonymous Delphi process of the panel. We identified 43 records reporting on 24 RCTs. Most network information surrounded sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Under consideration of the certainty of the evidence and evidence to decision parameters, we suggest sleeve gastrectomy or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass over adjustable gastric banding, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and gastric plication for the management of severe obesity and associated metabolic diseases. One anastomosis gastric bypass and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy are suggested as alternatives, although evidence on benefits and harms, and specific selection criteria is limited compared to sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries and decision aids in user friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp:  https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/Lpv2kE CONCLUSIONS: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, pertinent recommendations on the use of bariatric and metabolic surgery for the management of severe obesity and metabolic diseases. The guideline replaces relevant recommendations published in the EAES Bariatric Guidelines 2020.

Carrano FM ，Iossa A ，Di Lorenzo N ，Silecchia G ，Kontouli KM ，Mavridis D ，Alarçon I ，Felsenreich DM ，Sanchez-Cordero S ，Di Vincenzo A ，Balagué-Ponz MC ，Batterham RL ，Bouvy N ，Copaescu C ，Dicker D ，Fried M ，Godoroja D ，Goitein D ，Halford JCG ，Kalogridaki M ，De Luca M ，Morales-Conde S ，Prager G ，Pucci A ，Vilallonga R ，Zani I ，Vandvik PO ，Antoniou SA ，EAES Bariatric Surgery Guidelines Group ... -  《-》