Cited by 81Bariatric Surgery and OutcomesPharmacology and Obesity TreatmentAirway Management and Intubation Techniques

The Influence of the Orbera Intragastric Balloon Filling Volumes on Weight Loss, Tolerability, and Adverse Events: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Kumar, Nitin, Bazerbachi, Fateh, Rustagi, Tarun, McCarty, Thomas R., Thompson, Christopher C., Galvao Neto, Manoel P., Zundel, Natan, Wilson, Erik B. +2 more·2017·Obesity Surgery

Abstract

Background The Orbera intragastric balloon (IGB) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with a body mass index (BMI) between 30 and 40 kg/m 2 and is in wide use worldwide as a primary and bridge obesity management tool. The balloon filling volume (BFV) ranges between 400 and 700 mL of saline. Our objective was to determine whether there is an association between BFV and clinically relevant endpoints, namely weight loss outcomes, balloon tolerability, and adverse events. Methods A systematic review of studies investigating the use of the Orbera IGB system for obesity treatment was performed. Data was examined using random effects modelling and meta-regression analyses. Results Forty-four studies (n = 5549 patients) reported BFV and % total body weight loss (TBWL) at 6 months. Pooled %TBWL at 6 months was 13.2% [95% CI 12.3-14.0]. A funnel plot demonstrated a low risk of publication bias. Meta-regression showed no statistically significant association between filling volume and %TBWL at 6 months (p = 0.268). Higher BFV was associated with lower rates of esophagitis (slope = -0.008, p < 0.001) and prosthesis migration (slope = -0.015, p < 0.001). There was no association between BFV and early removal (p = 0.1), gastroesophageal reflux symptom (p = 0.64), or ulcer rates (p = 0.09). Conclusions No association was observed between Orbera IGB filling volume and weight loss outcomes. Higher volumes appear to be associated with lower migration and esophagitis rates; thus, a balloon filling volume of 600-650 mL is recommended.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11695-017-2636-3

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kumar, N., Bazerbachi, F., Rustagi, T., McCarty, T. R., Thompson, C. C., Galvao Neto, M. P., Zundel, N., Wilson, E. B., Gostout, C. J., & Abu Dayyeh, B. K.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Venue
Obesity Surgery
Published
2017-03-12
Volume
27
Issue
9
Pages
2272-2278
ISSN
  • 0960-8923 (ISSN-L)
  • 1708-0428
OpenAlex
W2592627162
Cited by
81
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obesity Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Pharmacology and Obesity Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Intubation, Gastrointestinal, Male, Obesity, Morbid, Postoperative Complications, Prosthesis Failure, Weight Loss, Gastric Balloon, Body Mass Index, Bariatric Surgery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review