Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 305

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastric Bypass in the Treatment of Morbid Obesity: A Randomized Prospective Study

Open access
Luján, Juan A., Frutos, M Dolores, Hernández, Quiteria, Liron, Ramón, Cuenca, Jose R., Valero, Graciela, Parrilla, Pascual·2004·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare the results of open versus laparoscopic gastric bypass in the treatment of morbid obesity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Gastric bypass is one of the most commonly acknowledged surgical techniques for the management of morbid obesity. It is usually performed as an open surgery procedure, although now some groups perform it via the laparoscopic approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between June 1999 and January 2002 we conducted a randomized prospective study in 104 patients diagnosed with morbid obesity. The patients were divided into 2 groups: 1 group with gastric bypass via the open approach (OGBP) comprising 51 patients, and 1 group with gastric bypass via the laparoscopic approach (LGBP) comprising 53 patients. The parameters compared were as follows: operating time, intraoperative complications, early (<30 days) and late (>30 days) postoperative complications, hospital stay, and short-term evolution of body mass index. RESULTS: Mean operating time was 186.4 minutes (125-290) in the LGBP group and 201.7 minutes (129-310) in the OGBP group (P < 0.05). Conversion to laparotomy was necessary in 8% of the LGBP patients. Early postoperative complications (<30 days) occurred in 22.6% of the LGBP group compared with 29.4% of the OGBP group, with no significant differences. Late complications (>30 days) occurred in 11% of the LGBP group compared with 24% of the OGBP group (P < 0.05). The differences observed between the 2 groups are the result of a high incidence of abdominal wall hernias in the OGBP group. Mean hospital stay was 5.2 days (1-13) in the LGBP group and 7.9 days (2-28) in the OGBP group (P < 0.05). Evolution of body mass index during a mean follow-up of 23 months was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: LGBP is a good surgical technique for the management of morbid obesity and has clear advantages over OGBP, such as a reduction in abdominal wall complications and a shorter hospital stay. The midterm weight loss is similar with both techniques. One inconvenience is that LGBP has a more complex learning curve than other advanced laparoscopic techniques, which may be associated with an increase in postoperative complications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.sla.0000120071.75691.1f

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Cited by

See all 305

Metadata

Authors
Luján, J. A., Frutos, M. D., Hernández, Q., Liron, R., Cuenca, J. R., Valero, G., & Parrilla, P.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2004-04
Volume
239
Issue
4
Pages
433-437
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2065874088
Cited by
305
References
18
FWCI
33.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastric Bypass in the Treatment of Morbid Obesity: A Randomized Prospective Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.sla.0000120071.75691.1f
The paper
Luján, J. A., Frutos, M. D., Hernández, Q., Liron, R., Cuenca, J. R., Valero, G., & Parrilla, P. (2004). Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastric Bypass in the Treatment of Morbid Obesity: A Randomized Prospective Study. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000120071.75691.1f

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.