Skip to main content
Endoscopy International Open logoLink to Endoscopy International Open
. 2020 Sep 22;8(10):E1332–E1340. doi: 10.1055/a-1214-5822

Efficacy of transoral outlet reduction in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients to promote weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Banreet Singh Dhindsa 1, Syed Mohsin Saghir 1, Yassin Naga 1, Amaninder Dhaliwal 2, Dayl Ramai 3, Chad Cross 4, Shailender Singh 2, Ishfaq Bhat 2, Douglas G Adler 5
PMCID: PMC7511267  PMID: 33015335

Abstract

Background and study aims  Transoral outlet reduction (TORe) is an endoscopic procedure used in patients with weight gain post Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TORe with a full-thickness suturing device for treating patients with weight regain after RYGB.

Patients and methods  We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Google-Scholar, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception to March 2020). The primary outcomes assessed were technical success, absolute weight loss (AWL) and percent of total weight loss (% TWL) at 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure. The secondary outcomes assessed were pooled rate of adverse events (AEs), adverse event subtypes and association of size of gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJA) and percent TWL.

Results  Thirteen studies on 850 patients were included. The pooled rate of technical success was 99.89 %. The absolute weight loss (kg) at 3, 6, and 12 months was 6.14, 10.15, and 7.14, respectively. The percent TWL at 3, 6, and 12 months was 6.69, 11.34, and 8.55, respectively. The pooled rate of AE was 11.4 % with abdominal pain being the most common adverse event. The correlation coefficient (r) was –0.11 between post TORe GJA size and weight loss at 12 months.

Conclusion  TORe is an endoscopic procedure that is safe and technically feasible for post RYGB with weight gain.

Introduction

Obesity is a growing global epidemic associated with increased morbidity and mortality 1 . Multiple comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and stroke, are associated with obesity 2 . Bariatric surgery is the gold standard of care for effective sustainable weight reduction and has been shown to induce remission of diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome 3 4 . Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (RYGB) is a common form of effective bariatric surgery that leads to significant long term weight loss compared to sleeve gastrectomy or gastric banding 5 .

Despite the efficacy of RYGB, some studies have noted weight regain or insufficient weight loss in a proportion of patients 3 6 . Factors contributing to weight gain after RYGB include mechanical dehiscence of staples, dilation of the gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJA), and patient-related factors such as dietary noncompliance, physical inactivity, and mental health disorders 7 8 . Due to the occurrence of weight gain, revision surgery after RYGB has become increasingly popular 9 . The American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) estimates that incidence of patients requiring revision of prior bariatric surgeries has more than doubled in United States, increasing from 6 % in 2011 to 15.4 % in 2018 10 . Currently, there is no established standard management for revisional surgery after RYGB. Options include gastric banding revision (which involves placement of a prosthetic band distal to the gastro-esophageal junction), conversion to a distal RYGB by taking down the jejunojejunostomy with creation of a reanastomosis to the ileum, biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch revision and endoluminal procedures such as transoral outlet reduction (TORe) 3 .

TORe is a minimally invasive endoscopic surgery that reduces the size of the GJA to achieve weight loss through mechanical restriction 11 12 . According to Abu Dayyah et al, the diameter of the GJA is a significant predictor of weight regain 13 . In 2014, TORe was first described as an endoscopic suturing procedure that reduces the size of the GJA 14 . This procedure has been performed using various techniques including plication devices (Stomaphyx; Endogastric Solutions, California, United States), suction based superficial suturing devices (Endocinch; C.R. Bard, Murray Hill, New Jersey, United States) or with the full thickness suturing devices (Overstitch; Apollo Endosurgery, Texas, United States) 15 . TORe initially demonstrated safety and efficacy with the suction-based superficial suturing system (Endocinch; C.R. Bard, Murray Hill, New Jersey, United States) 16 . Further developments with the full-thickness suturing system (Overstitch device) demonstrated superior durability and greater weight loss compared to the suction-based superficial system (Endocinch; C.R. Bard, Murray Hill, New Jersey, United States) 17 . The endoscopic gastric plication device (Stomaphyx; Endogastric Solutions, California, United States) did not demonstrate satisfactory weight loss 18 . TORe has shown promising results in a previous meta-analysis performed for all types of TORe procedures including plication devices, superficial suturing devices, Argon Plasma Coagulation (APC) and over-the-scope-clip (OTSC; Ovesco AG, Tubingen, Germany) 19 . Currently the full-thickness suturing device (Overstitch; Apollo Endosurgery, Texas, United States) with APC is the most commonly used device and this meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of TORe with this device as a therapeutic option for treating patients with weight regain after a RYGB.

Methods

Search strategy

We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Google-Scholar, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception to March 2020). We followed the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, by using predefined protocol, to identify studies reporting on TORe in patients with weight regain after RYGB surgery ( Fig. 1 ) 20 . MOOSE guidelines checklist and PRISMA checklist can be seen in Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. 2 respectively.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

 Study selection process in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement.

Key words used in the literature search included a combination of ‘Transoral, ‘outlet’, ‘reduction’, ‘Roux-en-Y’, ‘suture’, ‘gastric’ and ‘bypass’. The search was restricted to studies in human subjects in peer-reviewed journals. Two authors (BD, SS) independently reviewed the title and abstract of studies identified in primary search and excluded studies that did not address the primary research question, based on pre-specified exclusion and inclusion criteria. The full text of the remaining articles was reviewed to determine whether they contained relevant information. Any discrepancy in article selection was resolved by consensus with a third author (YN).

The bibliographic section of the selected articles, as well as the systematic and narrative articles on the topic were manually searched for additional relevant articles.

Study selection

In this meta-analysis, we included studies that evaluated performance of a TORe procedure with a full-thickness suturing device (Overstitch; Apollo Endosurgery, Texas, United States) in patients with weight regain after RYGB surgery. Studies irrespective of inpatient/outpatient setting, geography, abstract/manuscript status, were included as long as they provided data needed for the analysis.

The following were our exclusion criteria: (1) alternative methods of TORe like StomaphyX (Endogastric Solutions, San Mateo, California), Bard Endocinch (C.R. Bard, Murray Hill, New Jersey); (2) studies with sample size < 10 patients; (3) studies performed in the pediatric population (age < 18 years); and (4) studies not in English language.

In cases of multiple publications from the same cohort and/or overlapping cohorts, data from the most recent and/or most appropriate comprehensive report were included.

Data abstraction and quality assessment

Data on study-related outcomes in the individual studies were abstracted onto a standardized form by at least three authors (BD, SS, AD), and two authors (BD, SS) did the quality scoring independently.

The collected data were treated akin to single group cohort studies, therefore, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies to assess the quality of studies 21 . Quality assessment for randomized controlled trials was done with Jadad-Oxford scale 22 . Details of quality assessment are provided in Table 1 .

Table 1. Quality assessment of the study with Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Jadad scale.

Study Year Type of study No. of patients Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
Selection Comparability Outcome
Jirapinyo 37 2019 Retrospective 331 *** * ***
Callahan 23 2019 Retrospective  70 *** * ***
Kothari 42 2018 retrospective  10 ** * **
Staudenmann 25 2017 retrospective  22 ** * **
Tsai 36 2018 retrospective  81 *** * **
Vargas 12 2017 retrospective 130 *** * **
Catalano 43 2016 prospective  29 ** * **
Espinet 26 2018 retrospective  13 ** * **
Fayad 27 2019 prospective  44 *** * **
Goyal 24 2016 prospective  40 *** * **
Hollenbach 28 2019 retrospective  26 *** ** **
Laterza 44 2017 prospective  35 ** * *
Jadad Scale for RCT
Study Year Type of study No. of patients Randomization Blinding Withdrawals
Brunaldi 2020 RCT  19 2 0 1

Outcomes assessed

The primary outcomes assessed were (a) technical success of TORe procedure with full thickness suturing device; (b) absolute weight loss at 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure; and (c) percent of total weight loss (TWL) at 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure.

The secondary outcomes assessed were (a) pooled rate of adverse events (AEs) of TORe procedure; (b) pooled rate of AE subtypes: abdominal pain, bleeding, perforation, stenosis; (c) association of size of GJA and percent TWL; and (d) subgroup analysis between prospective and retrospective studies for primary and secondary outcomes.

Definitions

Definition of outcomes:

Technical success of TORe procedure with full-thickness suturing device was defined in 7 studies. Four studies 12 23 24 25 considered post procedure GJA size < 10 mm and four studies 26 27 28 29 considered post-procedure GJA size < 12 mm to be technically successful.

Absolute weight loss was calculated using the formula TORe weight- follow up weight and TWL was defined as (TORe weight-follow up weight)/TORe weight x 100 %.

AEs were defined as complications that were directly related to the procedure. AE were divided into mild, moderate, severe and fatal as per ASGE guidelines 30 .

Statistical analysis

We used meta-analysis techniques to calculate the pooled estimates for each outcome of interest following the methods suggested by DerSimonian and Laird using the random-effects model where appropriate 31 . In several instances in the data, values of zero occurred. In these instances, we avoided inadvertently adding positive bias to the outcomes by writing syntax to calculate weighted summary statistics. In this way, we preserved the integrity of the actual data values and avoided possible biases in reporting the outcomes. We assessed heterogeneity between study-specific estimates by using Cochran Q statistical test for heterogeneity, 95 % prediction interval (PI), which deals with the dispersion of the effects, and the I 2 statistics 32 33 . In this, values of < 30 %, 30 % to 60 %, 61 % to 75 %, and > 75 % were suggestive of low, moderate, substantial, and considerable heterogeneity, respectively 34 . Publication bias was ascertained, qualitatively, by visual inspection of funnel plot and quantitatively, by the LFK test; further, the extent of potential bias was ascertained utilizing the Doi Plot 35 . Sensitivity analysis was conducted in instances of potential bias by recalculating all statistics after removal of studies leading to LFK asymmetry; if removal of the study impacted estimates, the study was removed from the final analysis. Finally, we investigated potential correlative associations between post TORe GJA size and weight loss at 12 months using a study-based weighted correlation. All meta-analyses were performed using MetaXL software (v. 5.3; Epigear International), and the weighted correlation was calculated using R (v 3.6.1; Vienna, Austria) with the < wtd.cor > script in the “weight” package, with bootstrapped P values calculated with n = 10,000 iterations.

Results

Search results and population characteristics

From an initial 574 studies, thirteen studies reported use of TORe with full-thickness suturing device in RYGB patients. In our search process, we encountered multiple studies that had overlapping cohorts. The most comprehensive studies were included in the final analysis. The schematic diagram of study selection is illustrated in Fig. 1 .

The majority of patients were females. The indication for TORe procedure was weight gain after RYGB. All studies used the full-thickness suturing device.

Characteristics and quality of included studies

The meta-analysis included 13 independent cohort studies with total of 850 patients and 877 TORe procedures were performed on these patients.

None of the studies were population-based. Two studies were multicenter, and 11 studies were from a single center. Six studies had more than 40 patients, four studies had more than 20 patients, and three studies had less than 20 patients. All of the studies included had clear information reporting on the technical success, AE rates, including the sub-category of the AE. Five, six, and eight studies reported on 3-, 6-, and 12-month weight loss outcomes, respectively. Two studies reported 5-year weight loss outcomes. Nine studies were published in manuscript (peer reviewed) form and four studies were in abstract form. Eight studies were retrospective cohort studies, four were prospective cohort studies and one study was a randomized controlled trial.

Table 1 and Table 2 describe the characteristics of the included studies and the study quality assessment, respectively.

Table 2. Description of 13 studies used in the final analysis.

Study Year Country Single/Multicenter Manuscript/Abstract No. of patients No. of procedures Tech. Success Mean age Males Females
Jirapinyo 37 2020 USA Single Manuscript 331 342 342 50 47 284
Callahan 23 2019 USA Single Manuscript  70  70  70 51.3  7  63
Kothari 42 2018 USA Single Abstract  10  10  10 52.6  1   9
Staudenmann 25 2017 Switzerland Single Abstract  22  22  22 -- -- --
Tsai 36 2018 Switzerland Single Manuscript  81  97  97 48 22  59
Vargas 12 2017 USA Multicenter Manuscript 130 130 130 47.12 16 114
Catalano 43 2016 USA Single Abstract  29  29  29 --  5  24
Espinet 26 2018 Spain Multicenter Manuscript  13  13  13 50  5   8
Fayad 27 2019 USA Single Manuscript  44  44  43 -- -- --
Goyal 24 2016 USA Single Manuscript  40  40  40 53  9  31
Hollenbach 28 2019 Germany Single Manuscript  26  26  26 -- -- --
Laterza 44 2017 Italy Single Abstract  35  35  35 -- -- --
Brunaldi 29 2020 Brazil Single Manuscript  19  19  19 45.8 -- --

Meta-analysis outcomes

Primary outcomes

The calculated pooled rate of technical success was 99.89 % (± 3.52 %).

The absolute weight loss at 3, 6, and 12 months was 6.14 kg (95 % CI 4.27–8, I 2  = 89 %, PI = –0.84 to 13.11), 10.15 kg (95 % CI 7.71–12.58, I 2  = 93 %, PI = 1.54 to 18.74) and 7.14 kg (95 % CI 4.62–9.67, I 2  = 99 %, PI = –2 to 16.29), respectively.

The percednt TWL at 3, 6, and 12 months 6.69 % (95 % CI 3.82–9.55 %, I 2  = 98 %, PI = –3.87 to 17.2), 11.34 % (95 % CI 8.07–14.67, I 2  = 94 %, PI = –0.09 to 23.67) and 8.55 % (95 % CI 5.69–11.4, I 2  = 99 %, PI = –1.67 to 18.77) respectively.

Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show the forest plots for absolute weight loss and percent total weight loss, respectively.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

 Forest plots showing absolute weight loss at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

 Forest plots showing percent total weight loss at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Secondary outcomes

The calculated pooled rate of AEs was 11.4 % (± 10.11) with abdominal pain being the most common adverse event at 4.22 % (± 8). Table 3 describes the AEs in different studies. The calculated pooled rate of mild, moderate, and severe AEs was 4.56 % (± 5.45 %), 1.6 % (± 1.65 %) and 0.57 % (± 1.35 %), respectively. Subgroup analysis could be only performed for AEss and showed an overall lower rate of AEs for prospective studies (7.78 % ± 7.46 %) compared to retrospective studies (12.25 % ± 10.81 %). The correlation coefficient (r) was –0.11 (t = –3.63; P  < 0.001) between post TORe GJA size and weight loss at 12 months.

Table 3. Adverse events in all procedures.
Study Year Total adverse events Bleeding Perforation Abdominal pain Stenosis Others
Jirapinyo 37 2020 35 6 0  8 2 19
Callahan 23 2019  4 2 1  0 0  1
Kothari 42 2018  2 0 0  0 0  2
Staudenmann 25 2017  1 0 1  0 0  0
Tsai 36 2018  0 0 0  0 0  0
Vargas 12 2017 41 0 0 23 0 18
Catalano 43 2016  6 0 0  6 0  0
Espinet 26 2018  3 1 0  0 0  2
Fayad 27 2019  3 0 0  0 0  3
Goyal 24 2016  0 0 0  0 0  0
Hollenbach 28 2019  1 0 1  0 0  0
Laterza 44 2017  3 1 1  0 0  1
Brunaldi 29 2020  1 0 0  0 1  0

Validation of meta-analysis results

Sensitivity analysis

To assess whether any one study had a dominant effect on the meta-analysis, we excluded one study at a time and analyzed its effect on the main summary estimate. On this analysis, no single study significantly affected the outcome or the heterogeneity.

Heterogeneity

We assessed heterogeneity using the I 2 percentage values and prediction intervals (PI). Substantial heterogeneity with wide PI was noted in the analysis of absolute weight reduction and percent TWL at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Publication bias

Based on visual inspection of the funnel plot and the Doi Plot, as well as quantitative measurement based on the LFK test, there was evidence of asymmetry and hence potential publication bias. Sensitivity analysis by removal of asymmetric studies revealed the impact of the possible publication bias but this did not lead to a statistical change in the calculated estimate or the conclusion of this meta-analysis. However, it should be noted that the ability to detect bias is limited.

Discussion

Our study demonstrates that TORe is an alternative minimally invasive surgical treatment for patients with weight gain following RYBG. TORe showed a high technical success and a low adverse event rate. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis of the commercially available full thickness suturing device for patients with weight gain after RYGB .

In our meta-analysis, we analyzed % TWL and absolute weight loss at 3, 6, and 12 months. Our pooled percent TWL and AWL at 3 and 6 months showed persistent weight loss. At the 12-month mark there was evidence of weight recidivism from 11.34 % TWL at 6 months to 8.55 %. Two studies 24 36 showed persistent weight loss and the rest of the studies demonstrated weight recidivism at 12 months. It is hypothesized that the weight loss post TORe was secondary to reduction in GJA size, improved eating habits, quicker gastric emptying times, and induction of satiety by stimulating gastric stretch receptors 11 24 27 28 . Weight recidivism was reported to be due to genetic factors, lack of dietary compliance, or due to suture breakage/migration leading to dilation of the GJA after TORe 26 27 28 36 .

Long-term outcomes (5 years) were reported in two studies 23 37 . Callahan et al exhibited weight recidivism in their long-term analysis of TORe. In subgroup analysis of different suture types in this study, the pursestring suture group showed weight loss while the interrupted suture group showed weight recidivism 23 . Jirapinyo et al showed persistent weight loss and the majority of the patients in this study underwent pursestring suturing. Many patients in this study also underwent repeat procedures and received other adjunctive therapies once they attained a weight plateau or had minimal benefit (< 5 % TWL) 37 .

In 850 patients, AE rates were 11.4 % (± 10.11) without any mortality. This is comparable to other revisional procedures such as adjustable gastric banding and distal RYGB conversion 38 39 40 . The most common AE in our study was abdominal pain at 4.22 % (± 8). Rates of perforation and bleeding were low at 0.46 % (± 1.16) and 1.14 % (± 1.38), respectively. This signifies that TORe is a safe procedure if performed by an endoscopist trained in endoscopic suturing.

Post TORe GJA size was weakly related to the percent TWL with r value of –0.1 ( P  < 0.001), which indicates there might be increased weight loss with smaller GJA size. However, according to Jirapinyo et al, there was an increased incidence of nausea and vomiting with GJA < 4 mm 37 . The majority of the studies aimed for a GJA size < 10–12 mm 12 23 24 25 26 27 29 36 .

Strengths of this procedure surround the minimally invasive aspect of it and subsequent weight loss observed from doing so. The two studies with over 1-year follow-up show that this procedure may be durable for long-term weight loss. Areas of interest involve the different types of suture styles with the Apollo device and how they affect patients in the long run. Currently, pursestring sutures may provide the best results for sustained weight loss 23 27 36 37 .

Two studies have compared TORe with APC to TORe with ESD 28 41 . One study reported greater weight loss with ESD-TORe as compared to TORe with APC while the other study did not reveal any significant difference between the two groups. This is another novel addition to TORe and more studies are needed to evaluate its safety and efficacy.

Limitations include some of the studies being retrospective in nature, most of the studies had short-term follow-up, and there was loss of follow-up. Our pooled rates were limited by heterogeneity and there was increased risk of confounding bias due to majority of the studies being retrospective. For unexperienced endoscopists, this procedure may be technically challenging and thus affect generalizability. More long-term studies should be done to observe durability as seen in the reports from Callahan and Jirapinyo et al. Future studies should include follow-up endoscopy post TORe to examine the GJA to evaluate its durability and to see if this correlates with weight recidivism after TORe is done.

Conclusion

In conclusion, TORe is a minimally invasive procedure that may be safe and feasible for post RYGB patients who do not want to undergo a surgical revision due to increased morbidity and mortality. TORe shows promising results in the short term, but more studies are needed to evaluation long-term success of this procedure.

Footnotes

Competing interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material :

1894supmat_10-1055-a-1214-5822.pdf (418.8KB, pdf)

Supplementary material

Zusatzmaterial

References

  • 1.GBD 2015 Obesity Collaborators . Afshin A, Forouzanfar M H et al. Health effects of overweight and obesity in 195 countries over 25 years. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:13–27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1614362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Smith K B, Smith M S. Obesity statistics. Primary care. 2016;43:121–135, ix. doi: 10.1016/j.pop.2015.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Tran D D, Nwokeabia I D, Purnell S et al. Revision of Roux-En-Y gastric bypass for weight regain: a systematic review of techniques and outcomes. Obes Surg. 2016;26:1627–1634. doi: 10.1007/s11695-016-2201-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gloy V L, Briel M, Bhatt D L et al. Bariatric surgery versus non-surgical treatment for obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2013;347:f5934. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Maciejewski M L, Arterburn D E, Van Scoyoc L et al. Bariatric Surgery and long-term durability of weight loss. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:1046–1055. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.King W C, Hinerman A S, Belle S H et al. Comparison of the performance of common measures of weight regain after bariatric surgery for association with clinical outcomes. JAMA. 2018;320:1560–1569. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.14433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Changela K, Ofori E, Duddempudi S et al. Peroral endoscopic reduction of dilated gastrojejunal anastomosis after bariatric surgery: Techniques and efficacy. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;8:239–243. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i4.239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Karmali S, Brar B, Shi X et al. Weight recidivism post-bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Obes Surg. 2013;23:1922–1933. doi: 10.1007/s11695-013-1070-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hourneaux De Moura D T, Thompson C C. Endoscopic management of weight regain following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab. 2019;14:97–110. doi: 10.1080/17446651.2019.1571907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery . Estimate of Bariatric surgery numbers, 2011–2018. https://asmbs.org/resources/estimate-of-bariatric-surgery-numbers https://asmbs.org/resources/estimate-of-bariatric-surgery-numbers
  • 11.Jirapinyo P, Dayyeh B K, Thompson C C. Gastrojejunal anastomotic reduction for weight regain in roux-en-y gastric bypass patients: physiological, behavioral, and anatomical effects of endoscopic suturing and sclerotherapy. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12:1810–1816. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2016.09.036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Vargas E J, Bazerbachi F, Rizk M et al. Transoral outlet reduction with full thickness endoscopic suturing for weight regain after gastric bypass: a large multicenter international experience and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:252–259. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5671-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Abu Dayyeh B K, Lautz D B, Thompson C C. Gastrojejunal stoma diameter predicts weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Clin Gastroenterol Hepat. 2011;9:228–233. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.11.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Thompson C C, Slattery J, Bundga M E et al. Peroral endoscopic reduction of dilated gastrojejunal anastomosis after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a possible new option for patients with weight regain. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1744–1748. doi: 10.1007/s00464-006-0045-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wong S KH. Endoscopic full-thickness transoral outlet reduction with endoscopic submucosal dissection or argon plasma coagulation: does it make a difference? Endoscopy. 2019;51:617–618. doi: 10.1055/a-0894-4457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Watson R R. The use of the Overstitch for bariatric weight loss. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2020;30:115–128. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2019.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kumar N, Thompson C C. Comparison of a superficial suturing device with a full-thickness suturing device for transoral outlet reduction (with videos) Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79:984–989. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.02.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Eid G M, McCloskey C A, Eagleton J K et al. StomaphyX vs a sham procedure for revisional surgery to reduce regained weight in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients : a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:372–379. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.4051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Brunaldi V O, Jirapinyo P, de Moura D TH et al. Endoscopic Treatment of weight regain following roux-en-y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2018;28:266–276. doi: 10.1007/s11695-017-2986-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals Internal Med. 2009;151:264–269. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–605. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Jadad A R, Moore R A, Carroll D et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Callahan Z M, Su B, Kuchta K et al. Five-year results of endoscopic gastrojejunostomy revision (transoral outlet reduction) for weight gain after gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2019 doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07003-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Goyal D, Kim S, Dutson E. Endoscopic trans-oral outlet reduction in combination with gastroplasty (TORe-G) is a novel technique that is highly efficacious and safe for weight loss in patients with failed Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2015;110:S656–S657. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Staudenmann D, Gass M, Milone C.Transoral outlet reduction (TORe) partially reverses weight regain after bariatric Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). First clinical experience from a tertiary referral center Muttenz, Switzerland: Emh Swiss Medical Publishers Ltd Farnsburgerstr 8; Ch-41322S [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Espinet-Coll E, Nebreda-Durán J, López-Nava-Breviere Get al. Eficacia y seguridad del TORe mediante sutura endoscópica para tratar la reganancia ponderal tras bypass gástrico quirúrgico en Y-de-Roux Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas 2018110551–556.29739229 [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fayad L, Schweitzer M, Raad M et al. A real-world, insurance-based algorithm using the two-fold running suture technique for transoral outlet reduction for weight regain and dumping syndrome after Roux-En-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2019;29:2225–2232. doi: 10.1007/s11695-019-03828-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hollenbach M, Selig L, Lellwitz S et al. Endoscopic full-thickness transoral outlet reduction with semicircumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy. 2019;51:684–688. doi: 10.1055/a-0866-9427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Brunaldi V O, Ayala Farias G F, Tavares de Rezende D et al. Argon plasma coagulation alone versus endoscopic suturing plus argon plasma coagulation to treat weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a prospective randomized trial (with videos) Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.3757. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Cotton P B, Eisen G M, Aabakken L et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:446–454. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.10.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Higgins J PT, Thompson S G, Deeks J J et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kanwal F, White D. “Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses” in clinical gastroenterology and hepatology. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:1184–1186. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.09.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Guyatt G H, Oxman A D, Kunz R et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence – inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1294–1302. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Furuya-Kanamori L, Barendregt J J, Doi S AR. A new improved graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in meta-analysis. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2018;16:195–203. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tsai C, Steffen R, Kessler U et al. Endoscopic gastrojejunal revisions following gastric bypass: lessons learned in more than 100 consecutive patients. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23:58–66. doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-3961-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Jirapinyo P, Kumar N, AlSamman M A et al. Five-year outcomes of transoral outlet reduction for the treatment of weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.11.044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chang S H, Stoll C R, Song J et al. The effectiveness and risks of bariatric surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, 2003–2012. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:275–287. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ghiassi S, Higa K, Chang S et al. Conversion of standard Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to distal bypass for weight loss failure and metabolic syndrome: 3-year follow-up and evolution of technique to reduce nutritional complications. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018;14:554–561. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2018.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Shimizu H, Annaberdyev S, Motamarry I et al. Revisional bariatric surgery for unsuccessful weight loss and complications. Obes Surg. 2013;23:1766–1773. doi: 10.1007/s11695-013-1012-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Jirapinyo P, de Moura D TH, Thompson C C. Endoscopic submucosal dissection with suturing for the treatment of weight regain after gastric bypass: outcomes and comparison with traditional transoral outlet reduction (with video) Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.01.036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kothari T, Kaul V, Bittner K et al. Outcomes of a Transoral Outlet Reduction Endoscopy Procedure for Weight Regain Due to Dilated Anastomosis Aperture in Roux-en-Y Patients: 1024. American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2018;113:582–583. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Catalano M F, Khan N M, Lajin M et al. Mo2005 Gastric Outlet Revision Using Endoscopic Suturing (ES) in Patients Presenting With Weight Regain Following Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2016;83:AB491. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Laterza L, Boskoski I, Landi R et al. Transoral Outlet Reduction for Therapy of Weight Regain After Gastric Bypass: 770. American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2017;112:S430–S431. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1894supmat_10-1055-a-1214-5822.pdf (418.8KB, pdf)

Supplementary material

Zusatzmaterial


Articles from Endoscopy International Open are provided here courtesy of Thieme Medical Publishers

RESOURCES