Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs gastric banding for morbid obesity: a case-matched study of 442 patients.

HYPOTHESIS: Gastric banding (GB) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) are used in the treatment of morbidly obese patients. We hypothesized that RYGBP provides superior results. DESIGN: Matched-pair study in patients with a body mass index (BMI) less than 50. SETTING: University hospital and regional community hospital with a common bariatric surgeon. PATIENTS: Four hundred forty-two patients were matched according to sex, age, and BMI. INTERVENTIONS: Laparoscopic GB or RYGBP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative morbidity, weight loss, residual BMI, quality of life, food tolerance, lipid profile, and long-term morbidity. RESULTS: Follow-up was 92.3% at the end of the study period (6 years postoperatively). Early morbidity was higher after RYGBP than after GB (17.2% vs 5.4%; P<.001), but major morbidity was similar. Weight loss was quicker, maximal weight loss was greater, and weight loss remained significantly better after RYGBP until the sixth postoperative year. At 6 years, there were more failures (BMI>35 or reversal of the procedure/conversion) after GB (48.3% vs 12.3%; P<.001). There were more long-term complications (41.6% vs 19%; P.001) and more reoperations (26.7% vs 12.7%; P<.001) after GB. Comorbidities improved more after RYGBP. CONCLUSIONS: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is associated with better weight loss, resulting in a better correction of some comorbidities than GB, at the price of a higher early complication rate. This difference, however, is largely compensated by the much higher long-term complication and reoperation rates seen after GB.

Comparison of three separate antiadhesive barriers for intraperitoneal onlay mesh hernia repair in an experimental model (Br J Surg 2011; 98: 442-449).

The Editors welcome topical correspondence from readers relating to articles published in the Journal. Responses should be sent electronically via the BJS website (www.bjs.co.uk). All letters will be reviewed and, if approved, appear on the website. A selection of these will be edited and published in the Journal. Letters must be no more than 250 words in length.

Quality of Qualitative Research in the Health Sciences : Analysis of the Common Criteria Present in 58 Assessment Guidelines by Expert Users

The number of qualitative research methods has grown substantially over the last twenty years, both in social sciences and, more recently, in the health sciences. This growth came with questions on the quality criteria needed to evaluate this work, and numerous guidelines were published. The latters include many discrepancies though, both in their vocabulary and construction. Many expert evaluators decry the absence of consensual and reliable evaluation tools. The authors present the results of an evaluation of 58 existing guidelines in 4 major health science fields (medicine and epidemiology; nursing and health education; social sciences and public health; psychology / psychiatry, research methods and organization) by expert users (article reviewers, experts allocating funds, editors, etc.). The results propose a toolbox containing 12 consensual criteria with the definitions given by expert users. They also indicate in which disciplinary field each type of criteria is known to be more or less essential. Nevertheless, the authors highlight the limitations of the criteria comparability, as soon as one focuses on their specific definitions. They conclude that each criterion in the toolbox must be explained to come to broader consensus and identify definitions that are consensual to all the fields examined and easily operational.