• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF ROUX-EN-Y GASTRIC BYPASS AND SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY ON BODY MASS COMPOSITION AS MEASURED BY AIR DISPLACEMENT PLETHYSMOGRAPHY

A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF ROUX-EN-Y GASTRIC BYPASS AND SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY ON BODY MASS COMPOSITION AS MEASURED BY AIR DISPLACEMENT PLETHYSMOGRAPHY

Rhys Kavanagh, MD, Smith Jessica, MD, Debra Allan, RN, MSN, Peter Nau, MD, MS. University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics

Introduction: The roux-en-y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are the most commonly performed bariatric surgeries worldwide. Evidence suggests that the malabsorptive component of the RYGB leads to disparate changes in fat and lean mass when compared to that which is seen with restrictive-centric efforts.  This can impart deleterious effects on the patient such as an inability to complete activities of daily living, decreased bone mineral density and basal metabolic rate.  The SG omits the intestinal bypass and is thought to lack the malabsorptive qualities seen with the RYGB.  Little evidence exists on the effects of SG on body composition. This study seeks to compare patients who received a RYGB to SG with regards to change in excess body weight and body composition using Air Displacement Plethysmography (BodPodTM). It is hypothesized that patients who undergo RYGB will experience more profound loss in lean body mass than with SG.

Methods: Patients were selected according to NIH guidelines for bariatric surgery and completed a full multidisciplinary evaluation and monitored weight loss preoperatively. Patients underwent SG or RYGB based on surgeon recommendation, patient preference and medical comorbidities. Body composition was calculated using whole body densitometery (BodPodTM, Cosmed Chicago, IL).  Patients underwent testing pre-operatively, six months and 12 months post-operatively. Measurements of change in total body mass, fat mass and lean mass as well as calculation of change in percent excess body weight were performed. Statistical analysis was completed using SPSS.

Results: 63 patients were enrolled.  33 patients underwent SG and 30 had a RYGB. Mean %EBW loss for SG and RYGB was 47.2% and 53.4% respectively (P value = 0.17 95%CI -14.8 to 2.6). Mean % change in fat mass for the SG and RYGB groups was 9.2% and 10.51% respectively (P value = 0.25 95%CI -0.86 to 3.22). The mean % change in lean mass for the SG group and RYGB group was 9.4% and 10.49% respectively (P value = 0.38 95%CI -2.8 to 1.13).

Conclusions: Both the SG and RYGB provide equivalent, clinically significant loss in excess body weight. Despite the malabsorptive component of the RYGB, a greater degree of lean body mass loss was not observed when compared to the SG. This data can be used in patient counselling and patient selection when discussing the pros and cons of each procedure.


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 93986

Program Number: P151

Presentation Session: Poster Session (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

View this Poster

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

Refine Search