Obesity Surgery

, Volume 28, Issue 9, pp 2894–2902 | Cite as

An Analysis of Mid-Term Complications, Weight Loss, and Type 2 Diabetes Resolution of Stomach Intestinal Pylorus-Sparing Surgery (SIPS) Versus Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) with Three-Year Follow-Up

  • Austin Cottam
  • Daniel CottamEmail author
  • Hinali Zaveri
  • Samuel Cottam
  • Amit Surve
  • Walter Medlin
  • Christina Richards
Original Contributions



For many years, the Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) was considered a good balance of complications and weight loss. According to several short-term studies, single anastomosis duodenal switch or stomach intestinal pylorus sparing surgery (SIPS) offers similar weight loss to RYGB with fewer complications and better diabetes resolution. No one has substantiated mid-term complication and nutritional differences between these two procedures. This paper seeks to compare complication and nutritional outcomes between RYGB and SIPS.


A retrospective analysis of 798 patients who either had SIPS or RYGB from 2010 to 2016. Complications were gathered for each patient. Nutritional outcomes were measured for each group at 1, 2, and 3 years. Regression analysis was applied to interpolate each patient’s weight at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months. These were then compared with t tests, Fisher’s exact tests, and chi-squared tests.


RYGB and SIPS have statistically similar weight loss at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 36 months. They statistically differ at 18 and 24 months. At 36 months, there is a trend for weight loss difference. There were only statistical differences in nutritional outcomes between the two procedures with calcium at 1 and 3 years and vitamin D at 1 year. There were statistically significantly more long-term class IIIb-V complications, class I-IIIa complications, reoperations, ulcers, small bowel obstructions, nausea, and vomiting with the RYGB than the SIPS.


With comparable weight loss and nutritional outcomes, SIPS has fewer short- and long-term complications than RYGB and better type 2 diabetes resolution rates.


Gastric Bypass Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass RYGB SIPS Stomach Intestinal Pylorus Sparing Surgery SADI-S T2DM Diabetes Diabetes Resolution Complication Comparisons Single Anastomosis Duodeno–Ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy Bariatric Surgery 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Statement of Human and Animal Rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Since this is a retrospective study, formal consent is not required for this type of study.

Conflicts of Interest

Austin Cottam has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Daniel Cottam, the corresponding author, reports personal fees and other from Medtronic, outside the submitted work.

Hinali Zaveri has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Samuel Cottam has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Amit Surve has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Walter Medlin has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Christina Richards has no conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. 1.
    ASMBS. “Estimate of bariatric surgery numbers, 2011–2016.” 2016.
  2. 2.
    Alvarenga ES, Lo Menzo E, Szomstein S, et al. Safety and efficacy of 1020 consecutive laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies performed as a primary treatment modality for morbid obesity. A single-center experience from the metabolic and bariatric surgical accreditation quality and improvement program. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(7):2673–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cottam A, Billing J, Cottam D, et al. Long-term success and failure with SG is predictable by 3 months: a multivariate model using simple office markers. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13(8):1266–70. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sanchez-Pernaute A, Rubio Herrera MA, Perez-Aquirre E, et al. Proximal duodenal–ileal end-to-side bypass with sleeve gastrectomy: proposed technique. Obes Surg. 2007;17(12):1614–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sánchez-Pernaute A, Herrera MA, Pérez-Aguirre ME, et al. Single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S). One to three-year follow-up. Obes Surg. 2010;20:1720–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sánchez-Pernaute A, Rubio MÁ, Conde M, et al. Single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass as a second step after sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11:351–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sánchez-Pernaute A, Rubio MÁ, Pérez Aguirre E, et al. Single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy: metabolic improvement and weight loss in first 100 patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;9(5):731–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sanchez-Pernaute A, Rubio MA, Cabrerizo L, et al. Single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) for obese diabetic patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(5):1092–8. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cottam A, Cottam D, Medlin W, et al. A matched cohort analysis of single anastomosis loop duodenal switch versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with 18 month follow up. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(9):3958–64. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee WJ, Lee KT, Kasama K, et al. Laparoscopic single-anastomosis duodenal–jejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADJB-SG): short-term result and comparison with gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2014;24(1):109–13. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cottam A, Cottam D, Roslin M, et al. A matched cohort analysis of sleeve gastrectomy with and without 300 cm loop duodenal switch with 18-month follow up. Obes Surg. 2016;26(10):2363–9. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee WJ, Almulaifi AM, Tsou JJ, et al. Dudodenal–jejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy versus the sleeve gastrectomy procedure alone: the role of duodenal exclusion. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(4):765–70. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abd-Elatif A, Youssef T, Farid M, et al. Nutritional markers after loop duodenal switch (SADI-S) for morbid obesity: a technique with favorable nutritional outcome. J Obes Weight Loss Ther. 2015;5:3.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grueneberger JM, Karcz-Socha I, Marjanovic G, et al. Pylorus preserving loop duodeno-enterostomy with sleeve gastrectomy—preliminary results. BMC Surg. 2014;14:20. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mitzman B, Cottam D, Goriparthi R, et al. Stomach intestinal pylorus sparing (SIPS) surgery for morbid obesity: retrospective analyses of our preliminary experience. Obes Surg. 2016;26(9):2098–104. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cazzo E, da Silva FP, Pareja JC, et al. Predictors for weight loss failure following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Arq Gastroenterol. 2014;51:328–30. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fox B, Chen E, Suzo A, et al. Dietary and psych predictors of weight loss after gastric bypass. J Surg Res. pii: S0022-4804(15)00416-3. 2015;197:283–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Contreras JE, Santander C, Court I, et al. Correlation between age and weight loss after bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2013;23:1286–9. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mozer AB, Pender 4th JR, Chapman WH, et al. Bariatric surgery in patients with dialysis-dependent renal failure. Obes Surg. 2015;25(11):2088–92. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mor A, Sharp L, Portenier D, et al. Weight loss at first postoperative visit predicts long-term outcome of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass using Duke weight loss surgery chart. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012;8:556–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yoon J, Sherman J, Argiroff A, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass for the aging population. Obes Surg. 2016;26(11):2611–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weng TC, Chang CH, Dong YH, et al. Anaemia and related nutrient deficiencies after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2015;5(7):e06964. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schauer PR, Burguera B, Ikramuddin S, et al. Effect of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Surg. 2003;238(4):467–85.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schauer PR, Bhatt DL, Kirwan JP, et al. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy for diabetes—5-year outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(7):641–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pournaras Dimitrios J, Osborne A, Hawkins SC, et al. Remission of type 2 diabetes after gastric bypass and banding: mechanisms and 2 year outcomes. Ann Surg. 2010;252(6):966–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mingrone G, Panunzi S, De Gaetano A, et al. Bariatric surgery versus conventional medical therapy for type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(17):1577–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roslin MS, Dudiy Y, Weiskopf J, et al. Comparison between RYGB, DS, and VSG effect on glucose homeostasis. Obes Surg. 2012;22(8):1281–6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roslin MS, Gagner M, Goriparthi R, et al. The rationale for a duodenal switch as the primary surgical treatment of advanced type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic disease. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(3):704–10. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marceau P, Biron S, Marceau S, et al. Long-term metabolic outcomes 5 to 20 years after biliopancreatic diversion. Obes Surg. 2015;25(9):1584–93. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Higa K, Ho T, Tercero F, et al. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: 10-year follow-up. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2011;7(4):516–25. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rausa E, Luigi B, Asti E, et al. Rate of death and complications in laparoscopic and open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. A meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis on 69,494 patients. Obes Surg. 2016;26(8):1956–63. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sacks B, Mattar S, Qureshi F, et al. Incidence of marginal ulcers and the use of absorbable anastomotic sutures in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2006;2(1):11–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zaveri H, Dallal RM, Cottam D, et al. Indications and operative outcomes of gastric bypass reversal. Obes Surg. 2016;26(10):2285–90. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stenberg E, Szabo E, Agren G, et al. Closure of mesenteric defects in laparoscopic gastric bypass: a multicenter, randomized, parallel, open-label trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10026):1397–404. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Summerhays C, Cottam D, Cottam A. Internal hernia after revisional laparoscopic loop duodenal switch surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12(1):e13–5. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Musella M, Susa A, Greco F, et al. The laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass: the Italian experience: outcomes from 974 consecutive cases in a multicenter review. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(1):156–63. Scholar
  37. 37.
    Noun R, Skaff J, Riachi E, et al. One thousand consecutive min-gastric bypass: short- and long-term outcome. Obes Surg. 2012;22(5):697–703. Scholar
  38. 38.
    Surve A, Cottam D, Sanchez-Pernaute A, et al. The incidence of complications associated with loop duodeno-ileostomy after single-anastomosis duodenal switch procedures among 1328 patients: a multicenter experience. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018:2.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hunter Mehaffey J, Turrentine FE, Miller MS, et al. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass 10-year follow-up: the found population. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12(4):778–82. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bariatric Medicine InstituteSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations