Current status of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty: An opinion review

Table 1 Summary of comparison studies for weight control strategies

Ref.	Type of study	Comparison	Subject numbers	Length of follow-up (mo)	Weight loss efficacy (%TBWL)	Adverse event rate
Novikov et al[9] 2018	Retrospective cohort study, case-unmatched	ESG vs LSG vs LABG	91 ESG/120 LSG/67 LAGB	12	LSG (29.28%) > ESG (17.57%) > LAGB (13.30%), P < 0.001	LSG (9.17%) > LAGB (8.96%) > ESG (2.20%), P < 0.05
Fayad et al[10] 2019	Retrospective cohort study, case-matched	ESG vs LSG	54 ESG/83 LSG	6	LSG (23.6%) > ESG (17.1%), P < 0.001	LSG (16.9%) > ESG (5.2%), P < 0.05
Fiorillo et al[14] 2020	Retrospective cohort study, case-matched	ESG vs LSG	23 ESG/23 LSG	6	LSG (18.8%) > ESG (13.4%), P = 0.03	GERD symptoms LSG (30.7%) > ESG (0%), P = 0.004
Fayad et al[11] 2019	Retrospective cohort study, case-matched	ESG vs IGB	58 ESG/47 IGB	12	ESG (21.3%) > IGB (13.9%), P = 0.005	IGB (17.0%) > ESG (5.2%), P = 0.048
Cheskin et al[12] 2019	Retrospective cohort study, case-unmatched	ESG vs HIDLT	105 ESG/281 HIDLT	12	ESG (20.6%) > HIDLT (14.3%), P < 0.001	ESG (4.8%) > HIDLT (0.0%)

ESG: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty; GERD: Gastroesophageal reflux disease; HIDLT: High-intensity diet and lifestyle therapy; IGB: Intragastric balloon; LAGB: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; LSG: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; %TBWL: Percent total body weight loss.