Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 233

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Three-Year Follow-up of a Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastric Bypass

Open access
Puzziferri, Nancy, Austrheim-Smith, Iselin T., Wolfe, Bruce M., Wilson, Samuel E., Nguyen, Ninh T.·2006·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To analyze long-term weight loss, changes in comorbidities and quality of life, and late complications after laparoscopic and open gastric bypass. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Early results from our prospective randomized trial comparing the outcome of laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass demonstrated less postoperative pain, shorter length of hospital stay, fewer wound-related complications, and faster convalescence for patients who underwent laparoscopic gastric bypass. METHODS: Between May 1999 and March 2001, 155 morbidly obese patients were enrolled in this prospective trial, in which 79 patients were randomized to laparoscopic gastric bypass and 76 to open gastric bypass. Two patients in the laparoscopic group required conversion to open surgery; their data were analyzed within the laparoscopic group on an intention-to-treat basis. The 2 groups were well matched for body mass index, age, and gender. Outcome evaluation included weight loss, changes in comorbidities and quality of life, and late complications. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 39+/-8 months. There were no significant differences in the percent of excess body weight loss between the 2 groups at the 3-year follow-up (77% for laparoscopic versus 67% for open). The rate of improvement or resolution of comorbidities was similar between groups. Improvement in quality of life, measured by the Moorehead-Ardelt Quality of Life Questionnaire, was observed in both groups without significant differences between groups. Late complications were similar between groups except for the rate of incisional hernia, which was significantly greater after open gastric bypass (39% versus 5%, P<0.01), and the rate of cholecystectomy, which was greater after laparoscopic gastric bypass (28% versus 5%, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial with a 3-year follow-up, we found that laparoscopic gastric bypass was equally effective as open gastric bypass with respect to weight loss and improvement in comorbidities and quality of life. A major advantage at long-term follow-up for patients who underwent laparoscopic gastric bypass was the reduction in the rate of incisional hernia.

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.0000197381.01214.76

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 233

Metadata

Authors
Puzziferri, N., Austrheim-Smith, I. T., Wolfe, B. M., Wilson, S. E., & Nguyen, N. T.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2006-02
Volume
243
Issue
2
Pages
181-188
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001299881
Cited by
233
References
3
FWCI
23.69
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: Three-Year Follow-up of a Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastric Bypass. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.sla.0000197381.01214.76
The paper
Puzziferri, N., Austrheim-Smith, I. T., Wolfe, B. M., Wilson, S. E., & Nguyen, N. T. (2006). Three-Year Follow-up of a Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastric Bypass. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000197381.01214.76

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.