Skip to main content

Postoperative Early Major and Minor Complications in Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) Versus Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) Procedures: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review



Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) have been proposed as cost-effective strategies to manage obesity-related chronic disease. The aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review was to compare the “early postoperative complication rate i.e. within 30-days” reported from randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing these two procedures.


RCTs comparing the early complication rates following LVSG and LRYGB between 2000 and 2015 were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The outcome variables analyzed included 30-day mortality, major and minor complications and interventions required for their management, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, operating time, and conversions from laparoscopic to open procedures.


Six RCTs involving a total of 695 patients (LVSG n = 347, LRYGB n = 348) reported on early major complications. A statistically significant reduction in relative odds of early major complications favoring the LVSG procedure was noted (p = 0.05). Five RCTs representing 633 patients (LVSG n = 317, LRYGB n = 316) reported early minor complications. A non-statically significant reduction in relative odds of 29 % favoring the LVSG procedure was observed for early minor complications (p = 0.4). However, other outcomes directly related to complications which included reoperation rates, readmission rate, and 30-day mortality rate showed comparable effect size for both surgical procedures.


This meta-analysis and systematic review of RCTs suggests that fewer early major and minor complications are associated with LVSG compared with LRYGB procedure. However, this does not translate into higher readmission rate, reoperation rate, or 30-day mortality for either procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. 1.

    World Health Organization. Obesity and Overweight. URL: Accessed 14 Mar 2015.

  2. 2.

    World Health Organization. Obesity. URL: Accessed 25 Apr 2015.

  3. 3.

    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s Health 2014. Vol Australia’s health series no. 14. Cat. no. AUS 178. Canberra: AIHW; 2014.

  4. 4.

    Ng M, Fleming T, Robinson M, et al. Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2014;384:766–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Yates K. The growing cost of obesity in 2008: three years on. Access Economics Pty Ltd; 2008: 1–25.

  6. 6.

    Goss J. Projection of Australian health care expenditure by disease, 2003 to 2033. Canberra; 2008:1–65. URL: . Accessed 12 Apr 2015.

  7. 7.

    Wang YC, McPherson K, Marsh T, et al. Obesity and economic health burden of the projected obesity trends in the USA and the UK. Lancet. 2011;378:815–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Colagiuri S, Lee CM, Colagiuri R, et al. The cost of overweight and obesity in Australia. Med J Aust. 2010;192:260–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Picot J, Jones J, Colquitt JL, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:1–190. 215–357.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Borisenko O, Adam D, Funch-Jensen P, et al. Bariatric surgery can lead to net cost savings to health care systems: results from a comprehensive European decision analytic model. Obes Surg. 2015;25:1559–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Miras AD, le Roux CW. Mechanisms underlying weight loss after bariatric surgery. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;10:575–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Regan JP, Inabnet WB, Gagner M, et al. Early experience with two-stage laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as an alternative in the super-super obese patient. Obes Surg. 2003;13:861–64.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Agresti A. An introduction to categorical data analysis. Vol 1st ed. New Jersey: Wiley-Interscience; 1996.

  15. 15.

    DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Doi SAR, Barendregt JJ, Khan S, et al. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: the inverse variance heterogeneity model. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;45(Part A):130–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, et al. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. Chichester: Wiley; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10:101–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta analysis. Orlando: Orlando Press; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Higgins JP, Thompson BT. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F, et al. Assessing heterogeneity in meta analysis: statistic or index? Psychol Methods. 2006;11:193–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J. 1997;315:629–34.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Tang JL, Liu JL. Misleading funnel plot for detection of bias in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:477–84.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Hornik K. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2nd ed. Vienna: Foundation for Statistical computing; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metaphor Package, J Stat Software, 2010,

  26. 26.

    Fischer L, Wekerle A-L, Bruckner T, et al. BariSurg trial: sleeve gastrectomy versus roux-en-Y gastric bypass in obese patients with BMI 35–60 kg/m. BMC Surg. 2015;15:87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Bite LU, Gadiot RP, Grotenhuis BA, et al. The sleeve bypass trial: a multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing the long term outcome of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass for morbid obesity in terms of excess BMI loss percentage and quality of life. BMC Obes. 2015;2:30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kehagias I, Karamanakos SN, Argentou M, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for the management of patients with BMI <50 kg/m2. Obes Surg. 2011;21:1650–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Helmiö M, Victorzon M, Ovaska J, et al. SLEEVEPASS: a randomized prospective multicenter study comparing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass in the treatment of morbid obesity: preliminary results. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2521–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Peterli R, Borbély Y, Kern B, et al. Early results of the Swiss multicentre bypass or sleeve study (SM-BOSS). Ann Surg. 2013;258:690–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Yang J, Wang C, Cao G, et al. Long-term effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the treatment of Chinese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with body mass index 28–35 kg/m. BMC Surg. 2015;15:88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    de Barros F, Setúbal S, Martinho JM, et al. Early endocrine and metabolic changes after bariatric surgery in grade III morbidly obese patients: a randomized clinical trial comparing sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass. Met Syndr Relat Disord. 2015;13:264–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Zhang Y, Zhao H, Cao Z, et al. A randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy for the treatment of morbid obesity in china: a 5-year outcome. Obes Surg. 2014;24:1617–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Young MT, Gebhart A, Phelan MJ, et al. Use and outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs laparoscopic gastric bypass: analysis of the American College of Surgeons NSQIP. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:880–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6. Vol 4.2.6. 2006 ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2006.

  36. 36.

    Yang X, Yang G, Wang W, et al. A meta-analysis: to compare the clinical results between gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy for the obese patients. Obes Surg. 2013;23:1001–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Li JF, Lai DD, Lin ZH, et al. Comparison of the long-term results of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity. Surg Laparos Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014;24:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Zhang Y, Wang J, Sun X, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity and related complications: a meta-analysis of 21 studies. Obes Surg. 2015;25:19–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Chang SH, Stoll CR, Song J, et al. The effectiveness and risks of bariatric surgery. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:275–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Bhaumik DK, Amatya A, Normand SL, et al. Meta-analysis of rare binary adverse event data. J Am Stat Assoc. 2012;107:555–67. doi:10.1080/01621459.2012.664484.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Zellmer JD, Mathiason MA, Kallies KJ, et al. Is laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy a lower risk bariatric procedure compared with laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass? A meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2014;208:903–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Wang MC, Guo XH, Zhang YW, et al. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy for obese patients with Type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am Surg. 2015;81:166–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Rao W-S, Shan C-X, Zhang W, et al. A meta-analysis of short-term outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and BMI ≤35 kg/m2 undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. World J Surg. 2014;39:223–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Li JF, Lai DD, Ni B, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity or type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Can J Surg. 2013;56:E158–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O’Reilly A, et al. Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1434–42.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Heyland D, Muscedere J, Wischmeyer PE, et al. A randomized trial of glutamine and antioxidants in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1489–97.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Khalaf Al MM, Thalib L, Doi SA. Combining heterogeneous studies using the random-effects model is a mistake and leads to inconclusive meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:119–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Cornell JE, Mulrow CD, Localio R, et al. Random-effects meta-analysis of inconsistent effects: a time for change. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:267–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors’ contributions

1. MAM was responsible for the concept and design of this meta-analysis. Furthermore, he takes full responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to published article.

2. EO and MAM were responsible for acquisition and interpretation of the data.

3. RMY, SK, and TA were responsible for analyzing and interpretation of the data in depth from the statistical point of view. They were responsible for producing all the statistical diagrams (Forest and Funnel plots).

4. All authors were involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content and have given final approval of the version to be published. Furthermore, all authors have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for its content.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammed Ashraf Memon.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

For this type of study, i.e., meta-analysis, formal consent is not required.

Informed Consent

Does not apply

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Osland, E., Yunus, R.M., Khan, S. et al. Postoperative Early Major and Minor Complications in Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) Versus Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) Procedures: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. OBES SURG 26, 2273–2284 (2016).

Download citation


  • Bariatric surgery
  • Laparoscopic
  • Sleeve gastrectomy
  • Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
  • Meta-analysis
  • Systematic review