effects of laparoscopic vs. open gastric bypass for morbid obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effects of laparoscopic vs. open gastric bypass for morbid obesity. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to assess randomized controlled trials on laparoscopic and open gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Six randomized controlled trials involving a total of 422 patients were included. There were 214 patients in the laparoscopic group and 208 patients in the open group separately. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery for morbid obesity could significantly shorten hospital stays (WMD = −1.11 d, 95% confidence interval [CI][−1.65, −0.56]). However, laparoscopic surgery for morbid obesity showed higher re-operation (RR = 4.82, 95% CI [1.29, 17.98]) and longer surgical time (WMD = 28.00 min, 95% CI [7.84, 48.16]). There were no statistical differences in complication (RR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.64, 1.10]) and weight loss (WMD = 1.00 kg m⁻², 95% CI [−0.79, 2.79]). The effects of laparoscopic and open gastric bypass for morbid obesity were basically the same except that laparoscopic had a shorter hospital stay and open surgery had a rate of fewer re-operations and shorter surgical time. Further high-quality, long follow-up period randomized controlled trials should be carried out to provide more reliable evidence.