Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is safe and effective and should be a covered benefit.
M. Hutter
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318290d5e5
IF: 13.787
2013-05-01
Annals of Surgery
Abstract:“T he Comparative Effectiveness of Sleeve Gastrectomy, Gastric Bypass, and Adjustable Gastric Banding Procedures for the Treatment of Morbid Obesity” by Arthur Carlin and his colleagues in Michigan, published in this issue of the Annals of Surgery, provides further evidence that sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is a safe and effective procedure and should be a covered benefit for patient with obesity and obesity-related diseases.1 Using data collected as part of the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative, the results from 2949 patients who underwent SG were compared with a matched cohort of patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), with up to 3-year follow-up. The study shows that SG has a clinical effectiveness that lies between those of LAGB and RYGB: with SG being more effective than LAGB but less effective than RYGB. In terms of reduction in weight, the percent excess weight loss at 3 years was 56% for SG as compared with 67% for RYGB and 44% for LAGB, respectively. Similarly, the effectiveness of SG lies between those of RYGB and LAGB with regard to resolution of diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension and patient-centered outcomes including Health and Activities Limitation Index, patient satisfaction, and health-related bariatric quality-of-life scores. In terms of safety, SG was similar to RYGB for serious complications at 30 days (2.4% and 2.5%, respectively), although both of these rates were higher than those of LAGB (1.0%). The authors rightfully conclude that SG is a reasonable choice for the treatment of morbid obesity and should be covered by both public and private payers. These data from Michigan hospitals corroborate the findings both from previous studies and from the 2 national data accreditation programs, the American College of Surgeons—Bariatric Surgery Center Network and the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Centers of Excellence programs, which also found that SG has clinical effectiveness between those of the band and bypass and has an appropriate safety profile.2–4 In this regional study from Michigan, the findings are much more conclusive because of the number of cases, 3-year follow-up, patient-centered outcomes, and propensity score matching. Limitations include the fact that data beyond 30 days are patient self-reported and that the percentage of patients followed up is limited: 53% at 1 year, 37% at 2 years, and 28% at 3 years. Overall, this is a well-powered, comprehensive, multi-institutional study with appropriate propensity score–matched comparisons, which should inform policy makers, patients, providers, and payers that SG is a safe and effective procedure. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services made a “National” Coverage Decision for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) on June 27, 2012, stating that “Medicare Administrative Contractors acting within their respective jurisdictions may determine coverage of stand-alone laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) for the treatment of comorbid conditions related to obesity in Medicare beneficiaries . . . .”5 Therefore, whether or not to cover LSG as a stand-alone operation is left up to the regional jurisdictions for Medicare beneficiaries. This study should provide even more definitive evidence to Medicare Administrative Contractors and private insurers that they should be providing coverage for LSG. Similarly, as state exchanges determine their Essential Health Benefits as part of the Affordable Care Act, this study provides further evidence that coverage for bariatric surgery should be included and that SG should be an approved procedure. Morbid obesity is a lifelong disease, and its treatment must therefore also be a durable lifelong treatment. The history for the surgical treatment of obesity is littered with new procedures, such as jejunoileal bypass and vertical banded gastroplasty, that have come and gone. Now, even LAGB is being performed in decreasing numbers in the United States and around the world. SG results presented here are promising, with data up to 3 years; yet, time will tell whether this procedure will hold up. In life, we are hammered by experience and advertising that says newer is better—for example, that iPhone 5 is better than iPhone 4S, which was better than iPhone 4. History has proven that newer is not always better in bariatric surgery. RYGB, which has been performed now for more