Skip to main content
. 2014 Aug 8;2014(8):CD003641. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003641.pub4

Summary of findings 7. Laparaoscopic gastric imbrication compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for obesity.

Laparaoscopic gastric imbrication compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for obesity
Patient or population: participants with obesity
 Settings: any
 Intervention: laparoscopic gastric imbrication
 Comparison: laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect
 (95% CI) No of participants
 (studies) Quality of the evidence
 (GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy Laparaoscopic gastric imbrication
BMI at study end [kg/m²] 
 Follow‐up: mean 36 months The mean BMI at study end in the control group was 32.1 The mean BMI at study end in the intervention group was 4.8 higher (0.1 lower to 9.7 higher) 30
 (1) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 very lowa
Health‐related quality of life See comment See comment Not estimable See comment See comment Not reported
Comorbidities See comment See comment Not estimable See comment See comment Not reported
Mortality
Follow‐up: mean 36 months
See comment See comment Not estimable 30
 (1) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 very lowa No deaths occurred
Serious adverse events (SAEs) See comment See comment Not estimable See comment See comment Not reported
Reoperations [%]
Follow‐up: mean 36 months
See comment See comment Not estimable 30
 (1) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 very lowa 2 (16.7%) participants in the laparoscopic gastric imbrication group
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
 BMI: body mass index; CI: confidence interval
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
 High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
 Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
 Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
 Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

aDowngraded by three levels due to one trial only with few participants, and high risk of 'other' bias and unclear risk of bias across the other domains