Case series / case reportcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-BAR-08 standard review
Austrian follow-up 10+ years after sleeve
Reflux, Sleeve Dilation, and Barrett's Esophagus after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Long-Term Follow-Up.
Overview
Felsenreich DM et al.. Obes Surg 2017 · PMID 28593484 · DOI 10.1007/s11695-017-2748-9
Many patients had reflux and 15% had Barrett's changes, but the study was very small.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: low
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Long-term reflux
- How was the study done?
Case series
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
43
- What was actually found?
High BE rate
- How large was the observed effect?
15%
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Signal of concern
- What are the study's limitations?
Small, early technique
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
European
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
True incidence
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Felsenreich DM, Kefurt R, Schermann M, Beckerhinn P, Kristo I, Krebs M, Prager G, Langer FB
- Journal
- Obes Surg
- Year
- 2017
- Identifier
- PMID 28593484 DOI 10.1007/s11695-017-2748-9
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
COI: not stated in record | Grants: none listed
2. Research question
Reflux, sleeve dilation and Barrett's >10 years after SG
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Case series / case report – Long-term follow-up case series with pH-metry, manometry, endoscopy
- Population
SG patients without preoperative symptomatic reflux or hiatal hernia
- Country
Austria
- Period
>10 years after SG (early SG experience)
- Sample size
53 -> 43 analysed (26 non-converted examined)
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
SG
- Comparator
None
- Endpoints
Reflux, hiatal hernia, Barrett's
5. Actual results
- Results
6/43 (14.0%) converted to RYGB for intractable reflux; 10/26 non-converted had symptomatic reflux; de novo hiatal hernia 45%; Barrett's metaplasia 15%.
- Absolute risks
Barrett's 15% in examined patients
- Authors' conclusion
High incidence of BE and hiatal hernias >10 years after SG; small sample and early experience limit general conclusions.
6. Strengths
- Objective testing
7. Weaknesses
- Very small
- Early SG technique
- No control
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- high
- Rationale
Small selected case series.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Signal for BE after SG.
11. Independent contrary findings
SLEEVEPASS found BE 4% (similar to bypass).
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
European.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Weak but consistent signal.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | low |
| Risk of bias | high |
| Precision of results | low |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | mixed |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
15. Linked fact checks
- Sleeve gastrectomy substantially increases gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and erosive oesophagitis. – Studies supporting the claim
- Sleeve gastrectomy leaves the oesophagus exposed to Barrett's oesophagus (archive: Barrett's in 4% at 10 years in SLEEVEPASS). – Studies supporting the claim
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Listed in the archive bibliography only; the archive gives no specific interpretation.
- A. What was actually studied?
Long-term reflux after SG
- B. What did the authors find?
High rates of BE and hiatal hernia
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Authors caution against general conclusions
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Supports narrative on Barrett's.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Use as a signal is reasonable; the authors themselves warn that general conclusions are difficult.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable