A6
Bariatric Times • April 2015 • Supplement A
5
th
INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS SUMMIT FOR SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY
specifically asked. Resolution of
type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)
mirrors that of the LDS.
While it is still far too early to
say if SIPS will have the same lack
of weight recidivism that is seen in
the LDS, initial reports
2
by
Sánchez-Pernaute et al point to
less than five percent at three
years postoperative.
CONCLUSION
Review of the data on SIPS are
very encouraging, yet this
procedure in no way eliminates the
LSG or LAGB as primary
operations. SIPS should be
reserved for those who have T2DM,
body mass index above 50kg/m
2
,
and/or severely elevated
cholesterol, as LDS has shown to
be superior in addressing these
comorbidities.
3
Patients who wish
to undergo an operation with the
l
owest recidivism rate might also be
interested in SIPS as long as it is
performed by surgeons with
experience in hand-sewn
anastomosis.
REFERENCES
1. Marceau P1, Biron S, Marceau S,
et al. Long-term metabolic
outcomes 5 to 20 years after
biliopancreatic diversion. Obes
Surg. 2015 Feb 13. [Epub ahead
of print]
2. Sanchez-Pernaute A, Herrera MA,
Perez-Aguirre ME, et al. Single
anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass
with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-
S). One to three-year follow-up.
Obes Surg. 2010(12):1720–1726.
3. Risstad H, Søvik TT, Engström M,
et al. Five-year outcomes after
laparoscopic gastric bypass and
laparoscopic duodenal switch in
patients with body mass index of
50 to 60: a randomized clinical
trial. JAMA Surg. 2015 Feb 4.
[Epub ahead of print]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
.
This
chart
shows
the
mean
and
standard
deviations
of
percent
excess
weight
loss
at
two
years
for
each
of
the
four
major
surgical
procedures:
duodenal
switch
(DS),
Roux-en-y
gastric
bypass
(RYGB),
laparoscopic
sleeve
gastrectomy
(LSG),
and
laparoscopic
adjustable
gastric
banding
(LAGB).
Figure 2. Illustration of the SIPS or stomach and intestine pyloric sparing surgery
Adapted from Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E, Jensen MD,
Pories W, Fahrbach K, Schoelles K. Bariatric surgery: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;292(14):1724–1737.