Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Bariatric Surgery

Study on weight loss outcomes after bariatric surgery to determine a metric least influenced by preoperative BMI

International Journal of Obesity volume 47, pages 993–999 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background

Percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) and percentage total weight loss (%TWL) are used for reporting outcomes after bariatric surgery. However, they are not ideal for comparing outcomes on populations of varied initial body mass index (BMI). This study aimed to validate a recently introduced metric - percentage alterable weight loss (%AWL), after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB).

Methods

Analysis of weight data of all patients who had undergone LSG and LRYGB until the end of the year 2021. Outcomes for both procedures were analyzed separately. The patients were divided into quartile subgroups Q1 (lowest BMI) to Q4 (highest BMI) and weight loss up to 5 years postoperatively was compared using %EWL, %TWL and %AWL metrics. An intermediary metric was also tested for its effect on the weight loss patterns for both procedures.

Results

The cohort included 1020 LSG and 322 LRYGB patients, with initial mean BMI of 43.5 ± 7.5 and 41.9 ± 8.3 kg/m2, respectively. %EWL significantly favors lower BMI subgroups for both procedures. %TWL is ideal for comparing weight loss during the first 6 months but it then favors higher BMI subgroups beyond 6 months. %AWL with reference BMI of 13 kg/m2 seems the best metric for medium-term comparison of weight loss for LRYGB and an intermediary metric based on BMI 8 kg/m2 provides the best fit for medium-term comparison for LSG.

Conclusions

%TWL is least influenced by initial BMI during short-term follow-up after LSG and LRYGB. For medium-term comparison, %AWL is best suited for LRYGB while an intermediary metric is found to provide the best fit for LSG.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Chronological changes in BMI of the quartiles based on preoperative BMI.
Fig. 2: Chronological changes in the percentage excess weight loss, percentage alterable weight loss (universal), percentage alterable weight loss (T8), and percentage total weight loss metrics of the quartiles based on preoperative BMI.
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, Vitiello A, Zundel N, Buchwald H, et al. Bariatric surgery and endoluminal procedures: IFSO worldwide survey 2014. Obes Surg. 2017;27:2279–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Hall JC, Watts JM, O’Brien PE, Dunstan RE, Walsh JF, Slavotinek AH, et al. Gastric surgery for morbid obesity. The adelaide study. Ann Surg. 1990;211:419–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Mason EE, Amaral J, Cowan GS, Deitel M, Gleysteen JJ, Oria HE. Standards for reporting results. Obes Surg. 1994;4:56–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. WHO Expert Consultation. Appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies. Lancet. 2004;363:157–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ochner CN, Jochner MC, Caruso EA, Teixeira J, Xavier Pi-Sunyer F. Effect of preoperative body mass index on weight loss following obesity surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;9:423–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hatoum IJ, Kaplan LM. Advantages of percent weight loss as a method of reporting weight loss after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obesity. 2013;21:1519–925.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van de Laar AW. Algorithm for weight loss after gastric bypass surgery considering body mass index, gender, and age from the bariatric outcome longitudinal database (BOLD). Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10:55–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Park JY, Kim YJ. Efficacy of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in mildly obese patients with body mass index of 30–35 kg/m2. Obes Surg. 2015;25:1351–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brethaeur SA, Kim J, el Chaar M, Papasavas P, Eisenberg D, Rogers A, et al. Standardized outcomes reporting in metabolic and bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2015;25:587–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Seo DC, Lee CG, Torabi MR, Lohrmann DK. The longitudinal trajectory of post-surgical % total weight loss among middle-aged women who had undergone bariatric surgery. Prev Med Rep. 2017;5:200–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. van de Laar AW, Dollé MH, de Brauw LM, Bruin SC, Acherman YI. Validating the alterable weight loss (AWL) metric with 2-year weight loss outcome of 500 patients after gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2014;24:1085–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Park JY, Kim YJ. Validation of the alterable weight loss metric in morbidly obese patients undergoing gastric bypass in Korea. Obes Surg. 2018;28:1704–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Beisani M, Pereferrer FS, Vilallonga R, López ÓG, López AM. Del Castillo Dejardin D, et.al. Seeking an initial-weight-independent metric in a Mediterranean cohort of gastric bypass patients: the %AWL revisited. Obes Surg. 2021;31:1524–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mechanick JI, Youdim A, Jones DB, Garvey WT, Hurley DL, McMahon M, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient – 2013 update: cosponsored by American association of clinical endocrinologists, The obesity society, and American society for metabolic & bariatric surgery. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013;21:S1–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cumming G, Fidler F, Vaux DL. Error bars in experimental biology. J Cell Biol. 2007;177:7–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Population Trends, 2022. Department of statistics, ministry of trade & industry, Republic of Singapore. ISSN 2591-8028. Available at www.singstat.gov.sg.

  17. National Population Health Survey 2020 (Household Interview and Health Examination). ISBN 978-981-18-1526-3. Epidemiology & disease control division and policy, research & surveillance group, ministry of health and health promotion board, Singapore. Available at www.moh.gov.sg.

  18. van de Laar AW, Emous M, Hazebroek EJ, Boerma EJ, Faneyte IF, Nienhuijs SW. Reporting weight loss 2021: position statement of the Dutch society for metabolic and bariatric surgery (DSMBS). Obes Surg. 2021;31:4607–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van de Laar AW, Nienhujis SW, Apers JA, van Rijswijk AS, de Zoete JP, Gadiot RP. The Dutch bariatric weight loss chart: a multicenter tool to assess weight outcome up to 7 years after sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019;15:200–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    Siok Siong Ching, Andrew Siang Yih Wong, Annalisa Ya-Lyn Ng, Jinlin Lin & June Lee

  2. Department of Endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    Phong Ching Lee

  3. Department of Upper Gastrointestinal and Bariatric Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    Chin Hong Lim

Authors
  1. Siok Siong Ching
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Phong Ching Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chin Hong Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew Siang Yih Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Annalisa Ya-Lyn Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jinlin Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. June Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SSC conceived and designed the analysis, performed the analysis, generated the charts, and wrote the manuscript. SSC, ASYW, AYLN, JLee, PCL, CHL contributed to the data collection. JLin and PCL revised the draft manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors were involved in writing the paper and had final approval of the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siok Siong Ching.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ching, S.S., Lee, P.C., Lim, C.H. et al. Study on weight loss outcomes after bariatric surgery to determine a metric least influenced by preoperative BMI. Int J Obes 47, 993–999 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-023-01349-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-023-01349-7

Search

Advanced search

Quick links