Table 1.
Study characteristics
| Author and year | Country | Study design | Number of subjects (female gender) | Age of subjects1 | Surgical procedure | Follow-up (years) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Courtney et al. 2018 [26] |
UK | Retrospective cohort |
1011 (762) |
47 (18–78) | Laparoscopic, multiple bariatric techniques2 | 2 |
|
Mancini et al. 2018 [27] |
France | Retrospective cohort |
238 (195) |
40 (34–48) |
Laparoscopic RYGB (64.7%) SG (35.3%) |
2 |
|
Jambhekar et al. 2018 [28] |
USA | Prospective cohort |
713 (622) |
41.7 ± 11.2 | Laparoscopic SG | 2 |
|
Keith et al. 2018 [29] |
USA | Retrospective cohort |
586 (461) |
43 (36–51) | Laparoscopic RYGB | 9 |
|
Hanvold et al. 2015 [30] |
Norway | Randomized lifestyle inter-vention study |
165 (123) |
44 ± 8.6 | Laparoscopic RYGB | 2 |
|
Reid et al. 2018 [31] |
Canada | Prospective cohort |
48 (36) |
50.7 ± 9.4 | Laparoscopic RYGB3 | 10 |
|
Velcu et al. 2005 [32] |
USA | Retrospective cohort |
41 (36) |
32.4 ± 3.6 | Open RYGB | 5 |
|
Diaz- Guerra et al. 2005 [33] |
Spain | Prospective cohort |
75 (53) |
39 | Open BPD of Larrad | 5 |
Abbreviations BMI Body Mass Index, BPD biliopancreatic diversion, RYGB Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, SG Sleeve Gastrectomy, UK United Kingdom, USA United States of America
1Expressed in mean with standard deviation or mean with range
2Included RYGB, SG, one-anastomosis gastric bypass and gastric banding
3Majority of patients were done laparoscopically (±75%)