Abstract
Purpose
There are very few studies that have compared the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Among short-term outcomes, hospital readmission after these procedures is an area for quality enhancement and cost reduction. In this study, we compared 30-day readmission rates after LSG and LRYGB through analyzing a nationalized dataset. In addition, we identified the reasons of readmission.
Materials and Methods
The current study was a retrospective analysis of data from National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) All adult patients, ≥ 18 years of age and who had LSG or LRYGB during 2014 to 2019 were included. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used to identify the procedures. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to calculate propensity score adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for all cause 30-day re-admissions.
Results
There were 109,900 patients who underwent laparoscopic bariatric surgeries (67.5% LSG and 32.5% LRYGB). Readmissions were reported in 4168 (3.8%) of the patients and were more common among RYGB recipients compared to LSG (5.6% versus 2.9%, P < 0.001). The odds of 30-day readmissions were significantly higher among LRYGB group compared to LSG group (AOR, 2.20; 95% CI; 1.83, 2.64). In addition, variables such as age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, bleeding disorders, blood urea nitrogen, SGOT, alkaline phosphatase, hematocrit, and operation time were significantly predicting readmission rates.
Conclusions
Readmission rates were significantly higher among those receiving LRYGB, compared to LSG. Readmission was also affected by many patient factors. The factors could help patients and providers to make informed decisions for selecting appropriate procedures.
Graphical Abstract
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The World Health Organization considers obesity to be a major public health challenge [1]. According to global estimates, there are 400 million obese adults and 1.6 billion overweight adults. About 300,000 deaths occur yearly because of complications of obesity such as heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, and cancer [2]. Thus, obesity is responsible for a significant proportion of preventable deaths. According to recent estimates, one-third of American adults are overweight or obese. Annually, a substantial portion of (10%) of healthcare expenditures in the USA are spent on the treatment of obesity or associated surgical and medical complications [3].
There has been limited success in improving obesity-related comorbidities through non-operative measures such as increased physical activity, dietary modification, and behavioral interventions [4]. Bariatric surgery remains the only effective and sustainable solution to permanently combat morbid obesity and its related complications [5]. Bariatric procedures decrease mortality by as much as 35 to 89% by significantly improving or completely resolving obesity associated chronic comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, and several more of the cardiovascular risks [6]. A substantial number of patients also report improved quality of life and better psychosocial outcomes as a result of these interventions [3].
Bariatric surgeries have improved significantly over the past decades. Conventional bariatric procedures such as vertical and horizontal gastroplasty and jejunoileal bypass are not performed currently due to several associated complications [7]. For the same reasons, majority of the bariatric surgical centers have also discontinued biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch [8]. In the late 1960s, Mason and colleagues combined the aforementioned techniques to develop a procedure that subsequently underwent many modifications and evolved into the current laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) technique [9]. In RYGB technique, a small pouch is created within the stomach so that food intake in minimized. A part of the small intestine is attached to this pouch to allow food to bypass the primary digestion assisting portions of the stomach and small intestine. Many practitioners consider LRYGB to be the gold standard of bariatric surgery since it has proven to be so successful. Until recently, the LRYGB was one of the most commonly performed bariatric procedures in the USA due to the high degree of safety and excellent long-term results. However, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) which is a relatively new bariatric procedure is gaining support over LRYGB in the recent years [10]. Although initially recommended through a 2-stage approach, LSG has later modified as a stand-alone one step procedure for the treatment of morbid obesity [11]. In LSG, the stomach [12, 13] is reduced in capacity by removing two-thirds of the organ and suturing the remaining part using a stapling device. Several studies have supported that LSG showed similar weight loss and reduction in obesity-related comorbidities to LRYGB [14, 15]. Some studies have also shown that LSG has similar or even lower rates of postoperative complications and 30-day risk-adjusted mortality compared to LRYGB [14, 16, 17]. Due to these reasons, LSG is becoming more common over LRYGB over the past few years [10, 18].
Although LSG is associated with fewer technical challenges compared to LRYGB [14], very few large scale studies have compared the short-term outcomes between the two procedures. Hospital readmissions after surgery constitutes an area that could be utilized for quality enhancement and cost reduction [19, 20]. Identification of risk factors for readmission may predict patients who are candidates for targeted interventions. Majority of the readmissions after bariatric surgeries are potentially preventable as they are often symptom-related. Consequently, research on this topic has become one of the most important focus area in the field [21]. Current consensus suggests that readmission rates are 1.1 to 9.0% for LRYGB and 0.7–5.4% for laparoscopic LSG [16, 22,23,24,25]. Nevertheless, LSG being a relatively new procedure, readmission rates and their reasons could be explored further. The aim of this study was to compare the 30-day readmission rates after LSG and LRYGB using a large, validated nationwide dataset. This study also intended to identify the reasons of readmissions after these two bariatric procedures.
Methods
Data Source
The current study was a retrospective analysis of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database collected during the years 2014 to 2019. All patients who underwent LSG or LRYGB during this period and who were ≥ 18 years of age were selected from the NSQIP database. The NSQIP includes data from greater than 400 surgical centers within the USA. This includes urban academic hospitals to small community practice centers. As a third party collecting independent data from each center, the NSQIP has provided validated and reliable measurements of various health quality metrics for research purposes [26].
Study Population and Variables
Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 43,775 was used to identify LSG, while codes 43,644 and 43,645 were used to identify LRYGB from the NSQIP Participant User Files [7]. Patient characteristics were described using age, sex, race, BMI, operation year, ASA class category, smoking, prior comorbidities (obesity, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], congestive heart failure, hypertension, renal failure, dialysis, and bleeding disorder), preoperative lab variables (sodium, blood urea nitrogen, albumin, creatinine, bilirubin, serum glutamic-oxaloacetate transaminase [SGOT], alkaline phosphatase, white blood cell, hematocrit, platelet, and partial thromboplastin time [PTT]), and operation time.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics and outcomes were analyzed in the unmatched cohorts using χ2 test for categorical variables and Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous variables. To adjust for baseline differences between cohorts, a propensity score algorithm was used to match LSG patients to LRYGB patients in a 1:1 ratio. Propensity score matching (PSM) is a well-validated statistical technique that creates comparable groups and allows for accurate assessment of treatment effects [27]. Patients were matched for race, gender, comorbidities, and laboratory values. Following PSM a random sample of 60,000 cases by proportional allocation was selected. After matching, demographics, presurgical comorbidities, and outcomes of interest were compared using χ2 (Fischer’s exact when appropriate) and Kruskal–Wallis test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to generate propensity score adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for all cause 30-day readmissions. Backward selection was applied to construct the logistic model. All demographics, comorbidities, and operative factors used to generate the propensity score were screened for inclusion in each model. Variables with P < 0.05 and number of events ≥ 10 was included in the model. In one multivariate logistic regression analysis, continuous variables were standardized using interquartile range in SAS using proc stdize procedure. This was done to remove the effects of differing scales of these variables [28]. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (Cary, NC).
Results
There were 109,900 patients who underwent laparoscopic bariatric surgery (67.5% LSG and 32.5% LRYGB) between 2014 and 2019. The majority of the patients were females (80.1%). Median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 44.0 (35.0, 53.0) years and median (IQR) BMI was 43.9 (39.9, 49.3) kg/m2. Operation time was significantly higher in LRYGB patients compared to LSG patients (125.0 min versus 73.0 min, P < 0.001). Readmission was reported in 4168 (3.8%) patients. Readmissions were more common among those receiving RYGB, compared to LSG (5.6% versus 2.9%, P < 0.001). Baseline characteristics based on procedure performed and readmission rates are shown in Table 1.
LRYGB comorbidities such as insulin-dependent diabetes (12.0% versus 6.5%, P < 0.01), non-insulin dependent diabetes (19.4% versus 16.3%, P < 0.01), COPD (1.9% versus 1.6%, P < 0.01), and hypertension (48.4% versus 45.1%, P < 0.01) were higher among those who underwent LRYBG, while smoking history (8.9% versus 7.8%, P < 0.01), congestive heart failure (0.4% versus 0.3%, P < 0.01), dialysis (0.5% versus 0.2%, P < 0.01), and chronic steroid use (2.1% versus 1.6%, P < 0.01) were higher among those who underwent LSG. The distribution of comorbidities between LSG and LRYGB groups are shown in Table 1. To adjust for baseline differences between cohorts, a propensity score algorithm was used to match LSG patients to LRYGB patients in a 1:1 ratio. After propensity score matching, there was no significant difference in COPD, congestive heart failure, and bleeding disorder between LSG and LRYGB patients. However, LRYGB patients still had higher rates of diabetes (insulin-dependent 12.1% versus 6.5%, P < 0.01; non-insulin dependent 19.4% versus 16.4%, P < 0.01) and hypertension (48.3% versus 45.5%, P < 0.01). In the matched cohort, the LSG group compared to the LRYGB group had a higher dialysis (0.5% versus 0.2%, P < 0.01) and chronic steroid use (2.1% versus 1.6%, P < 0.01). Table 2 shows demographic data and baseline characteristics of the patients after propensity score matching.
After accounting for covariates, the LRYGB group showed significantly higher odds of 30-day readmission (AOR, 1.81; 95% CI: 1.48, 2.21), compared to the LSG group, without standardization (Table 3). This association remained significant after data standardization procedure (AOR, 2.20; 95% CI: 1.83, 2.64) (Table 4). In addition, variables such as age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, bleeding disorder, blood urea nitrogen, SGOT, alkaline phosphatase, hematocrit, and operation time were significant predictors of readmission.
Discussion
There has been exponential increase in the prevalence of all categories of obesity, and consequently, the rates of bariatric surgeries have also increased [5]. Recent research has supported that bariatric surgeries are safe and effective procedures for achieving and sustaining long-term weight loss [6, 29]. These procedures have significantly decreased the comorbidities associated with overweight and obesity and resulted in significant savings in healthcare expenditures [30, 31]. Since bariatric surgeries have been accepted as safe and effective, recent studies have started comparing the benefits versus adverse effects of existing bariatric procedures [32, 33]. Therefore, we sought to understand the short-term safety and outcomes of the two commonly performed stapling bariatric procedures in the USA. Our study could help practitioners to counsel patients preoperatively and make appropriate selections.
Selecting the ideal bariatric procedure should be based on personalized and patient centered factors such as age, comorbidities, BMI, and individual choices as well as provider related factors such as level of expertise and availability of resources. Patients should also be informed about the risk involved with bariatric procedures and complications and preoperative procedures. While making informed decisions for bariatric surgeries, both patients and provider should also consider other outcome measures such as hospital length of stay and readmission rates, as well as financial factors such as affordability, insurance coverage, and reimbursements. Most of the previous studies which looked for outcomes after bariatric surgeries have emphasized on factors associated with risk for reoperation, morbidity, and mortality. Although a few studies have used large-scale database such as NSQIP, similar studies on readmission in different settings are scarce [34].
Given the significant number of potential confounders, understanding the independent impact of any bariatric procedure (in our case, LSG and LRYGB) could be challenging. To overcome this issue, we used a strict propensity score match, which was able to adequately control for confounding variables. Our data showed that even after propensity score matching, the rates of 30-day readmissions were significantly higher after LRYGB, compared to LSG. This suggests that LRYGB is independently associated with increased readmission rates, while patients undergoing LSG are less likely to be readmitted. This finding is consistent with a recent study of New York statewide data showing a significantly higher readmission rate of 6.14% after LRYGB, compared to 4.33% after LSG [21]. Using NSQIP data, Young et al. also found that readmissions were more common after LRYGB than LSG (6.08% versus 4.05%, P < 0.01) [16]. However, in this study, readmission data were available only for 2011 ACS NSQIP containing a much smaller sample size. In addition, two studies have reported higher readmission rates after LRYGB compared to LSG, though non-significant [35, 36]. However, these non-significant results could be due to smaller number of LSG procedures in these studies. One notable study employed Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program data from 2015 to 2018 to determine risk factors for readmission after bariatric surgery [37]. However, in contrast to our study, the authors did not perform any propensity score matching to adequately control for confounding variables. Other factors significantly associated with unplanned readmissions included younger age, COPD, antihypertensive medication use, bleeding disorders, pre-operative blood urea nitrogen, SGOT, alkaline phosphatase, hematocrit, and operative time. This is similar to many previous studies attempting to predict readmission after bariatric and complex intestinal surgeries [22, 38].
Our retrospective analysis demonstrated that patients undergoing LRYGB have a higher rate of readmission compared to those who underwent LSG, even after propensity score matching. One possible reason could be that the two groups were differing with respect to unmeasured confounders. This may have resulted in apparently higher rates of readmission for those who had higher comorbidity burden at baseline, for example, tobacco user with diabetes who underwent LRYGB versus patients with obesity with mild hypertension who underwent LSG. Notably, the LRYGB group had greater prevalence of insulin-dependent diabetes (12.1% versus 6.5%, P < 0.01) and were more at risk for cardiac complications as indicated by their higher rates of antihypertensive medication use (48.3% versus 45.5%, P < 0.01). These results are consistent with those reported by Spaniolas et al., who showed a higher prevalence of diabetes among LRYGB patients, compared to LSG (56.6% versus 43.2%, P < 0.01) [17].
Strengths and Limitations
We used a large-scale database such as NSQIP which has strengthened our study. We could analyze data from a large sample of bariatric surgery patients, and this greatly improved the accuracy of our estimates. This database includes both community and academic hospitals across the USA, thereby increasing the generalizability of our findings. In addition, a large number of perioperative variables were available for analysis. Thus, the NSQIP database provides clear benefits of power and heterogeneity of practice, type, and volume, offering one of the best possible representations of bariatric surgery at the national level.
Our study has some limitations. We conducted a retrospective analysis of NSQIP database. Our data included only those hospitals that participated in NSQIP. This could have resulted in some selection bias. NSQIP is an administrative database and not bariatric specific. Therefore, only those variables that were collected by NSQIP were available for analysis. NSQIP does not have data on providers or volume of procedures occurring in the hospitals. This could have affected our findings on readmissions as readmission is associated with factors such as bariatric accreditation status and volume of procedures [39, 40]. Important co-morbidities such as obstructive sleep apnea, history of DVT, and complications such as bowel obstruction, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and anastomotic stricture are not recorded in the database [41]. These unmeasured confounders could have influenced the comparison of LSG versus RYGB. The ACS-NSQIP dataset only collects data for the first 30 postoperative days and does not account for readmissions beyond the 30-day postoperative period. This is because “readmission,” as defined by the NSQIP, includes patients who are readmitted within 30 days of their operation, while the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) use 30 days from the date of hospital discharge [42]. In a study that retrospectively looked for one year follow-up after bariatric procedure, only 36% of readmissions occurred within 30 days after the procedure [43]. Therefore, we could not compare postoperative readmissions beyond 30 days post-SG and post-RYGB. Although ACS-NSQIP attempts to capture readmission data via patient communication and review of medical records, it is possible that some readmissions are uncaptured. Lastly, ACS-NSQIP does not have data on ED visits. This could have prevented the capture of information from patients who would have postoperatively visited EDs but were not readmitted. Although not the objective of this study, availability of such data could have helped to understand whether differences existed between bariatric procedures with respect to ED utilization, which did not result in hospitalizations.
Conclusion
Using propensity score matched analysis we found that 30-day readmission were significantly higher among those receiving LRYGB, compared to LSG. In addition to the procedure type, readmission is also affected by many patient factors. These factors should be discussed by both patients and providers while selecting appropriate procedures. Our findings should be confirmed by future large-scale experimental studies.
Data Availability
Data is available from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database upon request.
References
Flegal KM, et al. Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999–2010. JAMA. 2012;307(5):491–7.
Karra E, Chandarana K, Batterham RL. The role of peptide YY in appetite regulation and obesity. J Physiol. 2009;587(1):19–25.
Dumon KR, Murayama KM. Bariatric surgery outcomes. Surg Clin North Am. 2011;91(6):1313-38 x.
Goldstein DJ. Beneficial health effects of modest weight loss. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1992;16(6):397–415.
Sjostrom L, et al. Bariatric surgery and long-term cardiovascular events. JAMA. 2012;307(1):56–65.
Meijer RI, et al. Bariatric surgery as a novel treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Arch Surg. 2011;146(6):744–50.
Guerrier JB, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is associated with lower 30-day morbidity versus laparoscopic gastric bypass: an analysis of the american college of surgeons NSQIP. Obes Surg. 2018;28(11):3567–72.
Moshiri M, et al. Evolution of bariatric surgery: a historical perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(1):W40–8.
Fobi MA. Surgical treatment of obesity: a review. J Natl Med Assoc. 2004;96(1):61–75.
Spaniolas K, et al. The changing bariatric surgery landscape in the USA. Obes Surg. 2015;25(8):1544–6.
Brethauer SA, Hammel JP, Schauer PR. Systematic review of sleeve gastrectomy as staging and primary bariatric procedure. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2009;5(4):469–75.
Ahmed MA, Venugopal S, Jung R. Engaging biological oscillators through second messenger pathways permits emergence of a robust gastric slow-wave during peristalsis. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17(12):e1009644.
Ahmed MA, Jung R. Modeling of slow waves in the stomach. J Encycl Comput Neurosci 2020;1–9
Zellmer JD, 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(6):903–10 (discussion 909-10).
Helmio M, et al. Comparison of short-term outcome of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass in the treatment of morbid obesity: a prospective randomized controlled multicenter SLEEVEPASS study with 6-month follow-up. Scand J Surg. 2014;103(3):175–81.
Young MT, 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(5):880–5.
Spaniolas K, et al. Early morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass in the elderly: a NSQIP analysis. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10(4):584–8.
Reames BN, et al. Changes in bariatric surgery procedure use in Michigan, 2006–2013. JAMA. 2014;312(9):959–61.
Postel M, et al. The cost of preventing readmissions: why surgeons should lead the effort. Am Surg. 2014;80(10):1003–6.
Lawson EH, et al. Association between occurrence of a postoperative complication and readmission: implications for quality improvement and cost savings. Ann Surg. 2013;258(1):10–8.
Patterson WL, Peoples BD, Gesten FC. Predicting potentially preventable hospital readmissions following bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(4):866–72.
Sippey M, et al. 30-day readmissions after sleeve gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12(5):991–6.
Dorman RB, et al. Risk for hospital readmission following bariatric surgery. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32506.
Hong B, et al. Factors associated with readmission after laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012;8(6):691–5.
McCarty TM, et al. Optimizing outcomes in bariatric surgery: outpatient laparoscopic gastric bypass. Ann Surg. 2005;242(4):494–8 (discussion 498-501).
Henderson WG, Daley J. Design and statistical methodology of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: why is it what it is? Am J Surg. 2009;198(5 Suppl):S19-27.
Stukel TA, et al. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA. 2007;297(3):278–85.
Keszthelyi M, et al. The potential role of central obesity in male infertility: body mass index versus waist to hip ratio as they relate to selected semen parameters. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):307.
Schauer PR, et al. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy for diabetes–3-year outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(21):2002–13.
Padwal R, et al. Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Obes Rev. 2011;12(8):602–21.
Weiner JP, et al. Impact of bariatric surgery on health care costs of obese persons: a 6-year follow-up of surgical and comparison cohorts using health plan data. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(6):555–62.
Plamper A, et al. Comparison of mini-gastric bypass with sleeve gastrectomy in a mainly super-obese patient group: first results. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(3):1156–62.
Kular KS, Manchanda N, Rutledge R. Analysis of the five-year outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy and mini gastric bypass: a report from the Indian sub-continent. Obes Surg. 2014;24(10):1724–8.
Abraham CR, et al. Predictors of hospital readmission after bariatric surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221(1):220–7.
Barreca M, et al. Is there a role for enhanced recovery after laparoscopic bariatric surgery? Preliminary results from a specialist obesity treatment center. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12(1):119–26.
Hutter MM, et al. First report from the American College of Surgeons Bariatric Surgery Center Network: laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has morbidity and effectiveness positioned between the band and the bypass. Ann Surg. 2011;254(3):410–20 (discussion 420-2).
Landin MD, et al. Trends in risk factors for readmission after bariatric surgery 2015–2018. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2022;18(5):581–93.
Tayne S, et al. Risk factors for 30-day readmissions and modifying postoperative care after gastric bypass surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(3):489–95.
Weller WE, Rosati C, Hannan EL. Relationship between surgeon and hospital volume and readmission after bariatric operation. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204(3):383–91.
Kwon S, et al. The impact of accreditation on safety and cost of bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;9(5):617–22.
Sanni A, et al. Postoperative complications in bariatric surgery using age and BMI stratification: a study using ACS-NSQIP data. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(12):3302–9.
Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1418–28.
Saunders J, et al. One-year readmission rates at a high volume bariatric surgery center: laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, laparoscopic gastric bypass, and vertical banded gastroplasty-Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2008;18(10):1233–40.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All co-authors have contributed substantially to the paper and have seen and approved the manuscript being submitted and take full responsibility for the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Key Points
• Readmission rates were different among bariatric surgical procedures.
• Clinical factors significantly predicted readmission.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ahmed, M.A., Zhang, Z., Ramamoorthy, V. et al. Difference in 30-Day Readmission Rates After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass: a Propensity Score Matched Study Using ACS NSQIP Data (2015–2019). OBES SURG 33, 1040–1048 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-022-06446-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-022-06446-6