Obesity surgery · 2017
Efficacy of First-Time Intragastric Balloon in Weight Loss: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Saber Alan A, Shoar Saeed, Almadani Mahmoud W, Zundel Natan, Alkuwari Mohammed J, Bashah Moataz M, Rosenthal Raul J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The intragastric balloon (IGB) is an adjunctive treatment for obesity. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IGB treatment by reviewing randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS: A total of 20 RCTs involving 1195 patients were identified. Weight loss results before and after 3 months were analyzed separately. The weight loss results of patients with and without IGB treatment were compared.
RESULTS: Our meta-analysis calculated the following significant effect sizes: 1.59 and 1.34 kg/m2 for overall and 3-month BMI loss, respectively; 14.25 and 11.16 % for overall and >3-month percentage of excess weight loss, respectively; 4.6 and 4.77 kg for overall and 3-month weight loss, respectively; and 2.81, 1.62, and 4.09 % for overall, 3-month, and >3-month percent of weight loss, respectively. A significant effect size was calculated that favored fluid-filled IGBs over air-filled IGBs. Flatulence (8.75 vs. 3.89 %, p = 0.0006), abdominal fullness (6.32 vs. 0.55 %, p = 0.001), abdominal pain (13.86 vs. 7.2 %, p = 0.0001), abdominal discomfort (4.37 vs. 0.55 %, p = 0.006), and gastric ulcer (12.5 vs. 1.2 %, p < 0.0001) were significantly more prevalent among IGB patients than among non-IGB control patients. No mortality was reported from IGB treatment.
CONCLUSION: IGB treatment, in addition to lifestyle modification, is an effective short-term modality for weight loss. However, there is not sufficient evidence confirming its safety or long-term efficacy.
METHODS: A total of 20 RCTs involving 1195 patients were identified. Weight loss results before and after 3 months were analyzed separately. The weight loss results of patients with and without IGB treatment were compared.
RESULTS: Our meta-analysis calculated the following significant effect sizes: 1.59 and 1.34 kg/m2 for overall and 3-month BMI loss, respectively; 14.25 and 11.16 % for overall and >3-month percentage of excess weight loss, respectively; 4.6 and 4.77 kg for overall and 3-month weight loss, respectively; and 2.81, 1.62, and 4.09 % for overall, 3-month, and >3-month percent of weight loss, respectively. A significant effect size was calculated that favored fluid-filled IGBs over air-filled IGBs. Flatulence (8.75 vs. 3.89 %, p = 0.0006), abdominal fullness (6.32 vs. 0.55 %, p = 0.001), abdominal pain (13.86 vs. 7.2 %, p = 0.0001), abdominal discomfort (4.37 vs. 0.55 %, p = 0.006), and gastric ulcer (12.5 vs. 1.2 %, p < 0.0001) were significantly more prevalent among IGB patients than among non-IGB control patients. No mortality was reported from IGB treatment.
CONCLUSION: IGB treatment, in addition to lifestyle modification, is an effective short-term modality for weight loss. However, there is not sufficient evidence confirming its safety or long-term efficacy.