Obesity and Metabolic Surgery for Surgeons — Count the Burden, Score the Risk, Choose by Trial, Follow for Life

The 42-year-old with BMI 44, hypertension, and diet-controlled diabetes asks whether an operation fixes diabetes; the 58-year-old man with BMI 52, prior pulmonary embolism, and sleep apnoea asks whether surgery will kill him; the sleeved patient 8 years on returns with reflux and weight regain asking whether conversion was inevitable; the bariatric patient on day 3 asks why the heparin dose keeps changing. The examiner watches you answer each with a trial, a threshold, and a number — never with habit.^{[8][9][17][28]}

Successful management has six limbs — counted global burden with a harmonized syndrome definition, adipose tissue as an endocrine, hypoxic, inflamed organ with an honest cause-consequence caveat, Eisenberg BMI thresholds with OS-MRS risk arithmetic, the sleeve-versus-bypass two-RCT ledger with its reflux and conversion costs, diabetes remission durability against SOS hard endpoints with pharmacotherapy honesty, and weight-adjusted perioperative craft from clots to wounds to sleep to lifelong nutrition.^{[1][3][4][8][13][18][23][26][28]} The arc fits one sentence: obesity tripled in men since 1975 with no national success story in 33 years, the syndrome needs any 3 of 5 with no obligatory component, fat signals through adipokines under hypoxia-driven inflammation, surgery is recommended over BMI 35 and considered at 30-34.9 with metabolic disease with mortality scored 0.2 to 2.4 percent across OS-MRS classes, sleeve and bypass both work with bypass holding the weight and reflux edge at the price of more interventions, diabetes remits in a third to a half at years with relapse demanding surveillance while SOS counts fewer deaths and infarcts, semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly loses 15 percent but two-thirds returns when stopped, heparin is dosed by weight not habit, laparoscopy cuts wound infection by three-quarters, sleep apnoea improves in three-quarters, and nutrition never ends.^{[1][2][3][8][10][15][19][23][26][27][28][33][35][37]}

The epidemic is counted, and the syndrome is defined

Count it globally before you counsel locally. NCD-RisC pooled 1,698 population-based sources with more than 19.2 million adults across 186 countries: age-standardised obesity rose from 3.2 to 10.8 percent in men and 6.4 to 14.9 percent in women between 1975 and 2014, and if post-2000 trends continue, 2025 brings 18 percent in men and over 21 percent in women, with severe obesity past 6 and 9 percent.^[1] The Global Burden of Disease analysis agrees on the slope: BMI 25 or more rose from 28.8 to 36.9 percent in men and 29.8 to 38.0 percent in women between 1980 and 2013, adult rises in developed countries have slowed since 2006 — and no national success story was reported in 33 years.^[2] Open every viva answer here: the disease is pandemic, the trend is unbroken, and the SOS cohort carries controlled surgical outcome data out to 20 years.^[1][2][25]

Define the metabolic syndrome by the harmonized statement, not by memory of ATP III. The cluster — raised blood pressure, raised triglycerides with low HDL cholesterol, raised fasting glucose, central obesity — qualifies with any 3 of 5 abnormal findings; there is deliberately no obligatory component, waist measurement stays as the screening tool, and a single set of cut points applies to everything except waist, where national or regional values stand in.^[3] The examiner's trap is the obligatory waist: IDF once demanded it, the harmonization dropped it — say so.^[3]

Fat is an endocrine, hypoxic, inflamed organ

Teach adipose tissue as an active endocrine organ, not stuffing. It regulates fat mass and nutrient homeostasis while releasing adipokines — adiponectin, chemerin, leptin, omentin, resistin, retinol binding protein 4, TNF-alpha, interleukin-6, vaspin, visfatin — that signal to brain, liver, muscle and immune system, modulating haemostasis, pressure, lipid and glucose metabolism, inflammation and atherosclerosis.^[4] The newest synthesis names the pattern metabolic inflammation: adipocytes plus infiltrating leukocytes produce adiponectin, leptin, TNF and IL-1β, orchestrating immune cross-talk between metabolic organs toward insulin resistance, liver disease and cardiovascular complications — and marking adipokines as therapeutic targets.^[7]

Mechanise it through hypoxia. As adipose mass expands, tissue Po(2) falls and the reduction underlies the inflammatory response — and hypoxia induces insulin resistance in fat cells plus tissue fibrosis.^[5] Then confess the honest limit: chronic adipose inflammation drives insulin resistance, yet inflammation is also essential for healthy adipose expansion and remodelling — whether it is cause or consequence of impaired sensitivity remains open.^[6] The examiner rewards the candidate who states the mechanism and then states its boundary.^[5][6]

Operate at the right BMI, and score the risk first

Indications are the 2022 ASMBS/IFSO update, which retires the 1991 NIH lines. Recommend metabolic and bariatric surgery at BMI over 35 regardless of comorbidity presence or severity; consider it at BMI 30-34.9 with metabolic disease; adjust thresholds in Asian populations so that BMI over 25 signals clinical obesity and over 27.5 earns an offer; consider appropriately selected children and adolescents — with long-term results consistently demonstrating safety and efficacy.^[8] For the viva: over 35 is a recommendation, 30-34.9 with metabolic disease is a consideration, Asian thresholds shift down, age alone does not exclude.^[8]

Score mortality with OS-MRS before consent. Five preoperative variables earn one point each: BMI 50 or more (odds ratio 3.60), male gender (2.80), hypertension (2.78), pulmonary-embolus risk factors including prior thrombosis, embolus, caval filter, right-heart failure and hypoventilation (2.62), and age 45 or more — with derivation mortality of 0.31 percent class A, 1.90 percent class B, 7.56 percent class C.^[9] Validation across 4,431 primary bypasses in four centres held the ladder: overall 0.7 percent mortality, class A 0.2, class B 1.1, class C 2.4 percent — class B fivefold above A, class C twelvefold above A while comprising only 3 percent of the cohort yet 9 percent of all deaths.^[10] Use it to consent, to choose, and to compare centres — the first validated bariatric risk score, built for exactly those three jobs.^[10]

Price the operation against its history. Buchwald's 2004 meta-analysis of 22,094 patients (mean BMI 46.9) found mean excess weight loss 61.2 percent overall — 47.5 banding, 61.6 bypass, 68.2 gastroplasty, 70.1 BPD/duodenal switch — with 30-day mortality of 0.1 percent restrictive, 0.5 percent bypass, 1.1 percent BPD/DS; diabetes completely resolved in 76.8 percent, hypertension in 61.7 percent, sleep apnoea in 85.7 percent.^[11] Against non-surgical care, Gloy's RCT pool (11 trials, 796 patients, BMI 30-52) shows surgery ahead by 26 kg, diabetes remission risk ratio 22.1 complete-case (5.3 conservative), metabolic syndrome 2.4 — at the price of iron-deficiency anaemia in 15 percent after malabsorptive procedures and 8 percent reoperations.^[12] Quote both sides of every ledger: benefit first, price second, horizon third.^[11][12]

Sleeve or bypass: the two-RCT ledger

SLEEVEPASS randomised 240 Finnish patients aged 18-60 to sleeve or bypass: at 5 years, excess weight loss ran 49 percent after sleeve against 57 percent after bypass — a difference of 8.2 percentage units that fell outside the prespecified minus 9 to plus 9 equivalence margins, so equivalence failed.^[13] Diabetes remission was effectively tied (complete or partial 37 percent sleeve against 45 percent bypass), and overall morbidity ran 19 against 26 percent with no treatment-related mortality.^[13]

SM-BOSS randomised 217 Swiss patients (mean BMI 43.9, 94.5 percent followed): excess BMI loss 61.1 percent sleeve against 68.3 percent bypass — not significantly different after adjustment — but reflux divided them: remission 60.4 percent after bypass against 25.0 percent after sleeve, worsening 6.3 against 31.8 percent, with reoperations or interventions in 15.8 percent after sleeve against 22.1 percent after bypass.^[14] The viva line: weight is a draw at 5 years in SM-BOSS, reflux is not — bypass fixes it, sleeve feeds it.^[14]

Merge the two trials and the weight edge sharpens without changing comorbidity parity. Individual-patient data (228 sleeves, 229 bypasses, 87 percent followed) give %EBMIL 7.0 points better after bypass (62.7 against 55.5 percent) with no difference in diabetes, apnoea or quality-of-life remission — hypertension remission better after bypass (60.3 against 44.9 percent) — while complications ran 37.2 against 22.5 percent with identical per-patient burden (Comprehensive Complication Index 30.6 against 31.0).^[15] More operations with complications after bypass, same suffering per complicated patient — quote both halves.^[15]

At 10 years the ledger holds with interest. SLEEVEPASS completers (85 percent for weight, 77 percent scoped) show median excess weight loss 43.5 percent sleeve against 50.7 percent bypass; diabetes, dyslipidaemia and apnoea remission tied; hypertension remission better after bypass (24 percent bypass against 8 percent sleeve); esophagitis 31 against 7 percent with Barrett's 4 against 4 percent; reoperations 15.7 against 18.5 percent.^[16] Quote the reflux pair together: esophagitis follows the sleeve, Barrett's does not discriminate.^[16] SM-BOSS beyond 10 years agrees: intention-to-treat %EBMIL 60.6 against 65.2 percent not significant, total weight loss 25.5 against 27.7 percent not significant — but sleeve conversions for failed loss or reflux ran 29.9 against 5.5 percent, and de-novo reflux favoured bypass.^[17] The candidate's counsel: both operations work durably; bypass buys weight and reflux control with more interventions, sleeve buys simplicity with conversion risk — match the operation to the reflux history and the patient's tolerance for a second trip.^[16][17]

Diabetes remits, vessels and lives follow

Mingrone's Rome trial (60 patients, BMI 35 or more, diabetes 5-plus years, HbA1c 7.0 or more) set the template: at 2 years, remission in none on medical therapy against 75 percent after gastric bypass and 95 percent after biliopancreatic diversion — with baseline BMI and weight loss failing to predict glycaemic improvement.^[18] The mechanism is metabolic, not merely mass — say that sentence verbatim at the viva.^[18]

Durability is good, not absolute. At 5 years, half of surgical patients (19 of 38; 37 percent of bypass, 63 percent of BPD limbs) held remission against none medically treated — with relapse recorded in 53 percent of 2-year bypass remitters and 37 percent of BPD remitters by year 5, which is why surgery enters the treatment algorithm with glycaemic surveillance attached.^[19] At 10 years (95 percent followed), 37.5 percent of operated patients never left remission; intention-to-treat remission ran 5.5 percent medical, 50.0 percent BPD, 25.0 percent RYGB — while surgical limbs carried fewer diabetes complications (relative risk 0.07 both comparisons) and BPD carried more serious adverse events.^[20] Counsel remission as probable, durable, and surveilled — never as cure-and-discharge.^[19][20]

STAMPEDE (150 patients, BMI 27-43, intensive medical therapy with or without bypass or sleeve) confirms at 5 years: HbA1c 6.0 or less in 5 percent medical against 29 percent bypass and 23 percent sleeve, with weight, triglycerides, HDL, insulin use and quality of life all favouring surgery and no major late surgical complications beyond one reoperation.^[21] ARMMS-T2D pools four RCTs into the largest randomised cohort followed to 3 years: remission 37.5 against 2.6 percent, HbA1c down 1.9 against 0.1 points, BMI down 8.0 against 1.8 — durable explicitly including class I obesity, where surgery remains underused.^[22] The class-I sentence is the exam's newest edge: the benefit holds where the operation is rarely offered.^[22]

Hard endpoints belong to SOS. Mortality at mean 10.9 years: 129 control deaths against 101 surgical, adjusted hazard ratio 0.71 — with 10-year losses stabilised at 25, 16 and 14 percent across bypass, gastroplasty and banding after 1-2-year peaks of 32, 25 and 20 percent.^[23] Cardiovascular events at median 14.7 years: cardiovascular deaths 28 against 49 (adjusted HR 0.47) and first fatal-or-nonfatal events 199 against 234 (adjusted HR 0.67).^[24] The review ledger adds diabetes incidence HR 0.17, myocardial infarction 0.71, stroke 0.66, remission odds 8.42 at 2 years and 3.45 at 10 — with high insulin or glucose predicting benefit while high baseline BMI did not, which is the evidence behind revising BMI-only selection.^[25] Close the loop for the examiner: selection by BMI alone is legacy; benefit tracks metabolic disease, not starting weight.^[18][25]

Drugs have a place, withdrawal has a price

STEP-1 randomised 1,961 non-diabetic adults (BMI 30 or more, or 27 with comorbidity) to weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo with lifestyle therapy for 68 weeks: weight fell 14.9 against 2.4 percent (difference 12.4 points), with 86.4 percent reaching 5 percent loss, 69.1 percent 10 percent, 50.5 percent 15 percent — against 31.5, 12.0 and 4.9 percent on placebo — with nausea and diarrhoea typically transient, mild-to-moderate, and subsiding, though gastrointestinal events stopped treatment in 4.5 against 0.8 percent.^[26] Quote STEP-1 as the pharmacotherapy benchmark every surgical candidate should be measured against before — and alongside — the knife.^[26]

Then quote the extension, because the examiner will ask what happens when the pen stops. After 68 weeks plus a further off-treatment year (327 studied), semaglutide and placebo limbs regained 11.6 and 1.9 points of lost weight, leaving net losses of 5.6 and 0.1 percent from baseline — two-thirds of prior loss returned within a year, with cardiometabolic gains reverting toward baseline.^[27] Obesity is chronic; treatment that stops, stops working — surgery's durability argument in one extension trial.^[27]

Clot prevention is weight-adjusted; wounds and sleep follow technique

The bariatric patient is high VTE risk and standard doses under-protect. Weight-adjusted heparin prophylaxis cut in-hospital VTE to 0.54 percent against 2.0 percent without adjustment, with major bleeding level at 1.6 against 2.3 percent — less clot, no more bleed.^[28] Strategy evidence adds: low-molecular-weight heparin beats unfractionated (0.25 against 0.68 percent, equal bleeding); post-discharge enoxaparin beats inpatient-only courses; vena-cava filters carry no pulmonary-embolism benefit with a point estimate toward harm (RR 1.21) plus higher mortality (RR 4.30) and DVT signals (2.94).^[29] Dose it by anti-Xa: enoxaparin 60 mg beat 40 mg for hitting the 0.2-0.5 IU/mL prophylactic window (78.57 against 53.57 percent) with no excess bleeding and no supratherapeutic levels in 56 randomised bariatric patients.^[30] For the drug chart: adjust by weight, prefer LMWH, extend past discharge in high risk, never routine filters.^[28][29][30]

Defuse the obesity-risk reflex with Dindo's 6,336 elective general-surgery patients (13 percent obese): morbidity 15.1 percent obese against 16.3 percent non-obese — identical — with the single exception of more wound infections after open surgery in obese patients; multivariate analysis confirms obesity alone is not a risk factor for postoperative complications.^[31] Doyle agrees there is no consensus linking obesity to specific complications — infection, wound, respiratory, VTE — and points the finger at visceral adiposity with its chronic inflammatory dysmetabolism as the real suspect and pharmaconutrition target.^[32] The candidate's line: obesity alone does not forbid elective surgery; open wounds in obese patients demand respect.^[31][32]

Technique is the wound strategy. Across 8 RCTs and 36 observational studies in obese patients (BMI 30 or more, bariatric and non-bariatric), laparoscopy cut surgical-site infection to OR 0.19 in RCTs and 0.33 observationally — a 70-80 percent reduction across general abdominal procedures.^[33] Antibiotics follow the old principle in the obese bariatric patient, who sits squarely in the high-risk category: the right drug, at the right time, in the right place.^[34] Sleep follows weight: 69 studies with 13,900 patients show every bariatric procedure profoundly improves apnoea with over 75 percent improved — BPD most, adjustable banding least.^[35]

Nutrition is lifelong, deficiencies are counted

Perioperative nutrition is guideline territory: the 2019 AACE/Obesity Society/ASMBS/OMA/ASA update carries 85 numbered recommendations (61 revised, 12 new) across procedure selection, novel operations, enhanced recovery and logistics — with the standing orders that bariatric procedures remain safe and effective for higher-risk obesity, decisions stay evidence-based within chronic-disease framing, and team perioperative care with nutritional and metabolic attention is mandatory.^[36] Quote the guideline as the framework; the supplementation tables belong to it and to dietetics, not to memory.^[36]

Count deficiencies at 10 years from SLEEVEPASS: micro- and macronutritional deficiencies were rare after both sleeve and bypass with similar rates — except iron deficiency by ferritin, 14 percent after sleeve against 41 percent after bypass — while supplement adherence ran lower after sleeve (71 against 89 percent).^[37] The follow-up lesson writes itself: bypass needs iron watched, sleeve needs adherence chased, and neither limb is ever discharged from nutrition.^[37]

References37ShowHide

1. [1]NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC), et al. Trends in adult body-mass index in 200 countries from 1975 to 2014: a pooled analysis of 1698 population-based measurement studies with 19·2 million participants. Lancet, 2016.PMID 27115820
2. [2]Ng M, et al. Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet, 2014.PMID 24880830
3. [3]Alberti KG, et al. Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation, 2009.PMID 19805654
4. [4]Rabe K, et al. Adipokines and insulin resistance. Mol Med, 2008.PMID 19009016
5. [5]Trayhurn P, et al. Hypoxia and adipose tissue function and dysfunction in obesity. Physiol Rev, 2013.PMID 23303904
6. [6]Blüher M, et al. Adipose tissue inflammation: a cause or consequence of obesity-related insulin resistance? Clin Sci (Lond), 2016.PMID 27503945
7. [7]Tilg H, et al. Adipokines: masterminds of metabolic inflammation. Nat Rev Immunol, 2025.PMID 39511425
8. [8]Eisenberg D, et al. 2022 American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) Indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Obes Surg, 2023.PMID 36336720
9. [9]DeMaria EJ, et al. Obesity surgery mortality risk score: proposal for a clinically useful score to predict mortality risk in patients undergoing gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis, 2007.PMID 17386394
10. [10]DeMaria EJ, et al. Validation of the obesity surgery mortality risk score in a multicenter study proves it stratifies mortality risk in patients undergoing gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Ann Surg, 2007.PMID 17893494
11. [11]Buchwald H, et al. Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA, 2004.PMID 15479938
12. [12]Gloy VL, et al. Bariatric surgery versus non-surgical treatment for obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 2013.PMID 24149519
13. [13]Salminen P, et al. Effect of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy vs Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass on Weight Loss at 5 Years Among Patients With Morbid Obesity: The SLEEVEPASS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 2018.PMID 29340676
14. [14]Peterli R, et al. Effect of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy vs Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass on Weight Loss in Patients With Morbid Obesity: The SM-BOSS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 2018.PMID 29340679
15. [15]Wölnerhanssen BK, et al. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: 5-year outcomes of merged data from two randomized clinical trials (SLEEVEPASS and SM-BOSS). Br J Surg, 2021.PMID 33640917
16. [16]Salminen P, et al. Effect of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass on Weight Loss, Comorbidities, and Reflux at 10 Years in Adult Patients With Obesity: The SLEEVEPASS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg, 2022.PMID 35731535
17. [17]Kraljevic M, et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass vs Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Obesity: The SM-BOSS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg, 2025.PMID 39969869
18. [18]Mingrone G, et al. Bariatric surgery versus conventional medical therapy for type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2012.PMID 22449317
19. [19]Mingrone G, et al. Bariatric-metabolic surgery versus conventional medical treatment in obese patients with type 2 diabetes: 5 year follow-up of an open-label, single-centre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2015.PMID 26369473
20. [20]Mingrone G, et al. Metabolic surgery versus conventional medical therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: 10-year follow-up of an open-label, single-centre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2021.PMID 33485454
21. [21]Schauer PR, et al. Bariatric Surgery versus Intensive Medical Therapy for Diabetes - 5-Year Outcomes. N Engl J Med, 2017.PMID 28199805
22. [22]Kirwan JP, et al. Diabetes Remission in the Alliance of Randomized Trials of Medicine Versus Metabolic Surgery in Type 2 Diabetes (ARMMS-T2D). Diabetes Care, 2022.PMID 35320365
23. [23]Sjöström L, et al. Effects of bariatric surgery on mortality in Swedish obese subjects. N Engl J Med, 2007.PMID 17715408
24. [24]Sjöström L, et al. Bariatric surgery and long-term cardiovascular events. JAMA, 2012.PMID 22215166
25. [25]Sjöström L, et al. Review of the key results from the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) trial - a prospective controlled intervention study of bariatric surgery. J Intern Med, 2013.PMID 23163728
26. [26]Wilding JPH, et al. Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity. N Engl J Med, 2021.PMID 33567185
27. [27]Wilding JPH, et al. Weight regain and cardiometabolic effects after withdrawal of semaglutide: The STEP 1 trial extension. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2022.PMID 35441470
28. [28]Ikesaka R, et al. Efficacy and safety of weight-adjusted heparin prophylaxis for the prevention of acute venous thromboembolism among obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res, 2014.PMID 24508449
29. [29]Brotman DJ, et al. Pharmacologic and mechanical strategies for preventing venous thromboembolism after bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg, 2013.PMID 23754086
30. [30]Kongsawat K, et al. Comparison of enoxaparin 40 mg versus 60 mg dosage for venous thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing bariatric surgery: A randomized controlled trial. Asian J Surg, 2024.PMID 38514281
31. [31]Dindo D, et al. Obesity in general elective surgery. Lancet, 2003.PMID 12814714
32. [32]Doyle SL, et al. Obesity and post-operative complications in patients undergoing non-bariatric surgery. Obes Rev, 2010.PMID 20025695
33. [33]Shabanzadeh DM, et al. Laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery decreases surgical site infection in obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg, 2012.PMID 23108128
34. [34]Ferraz ÁAB, et al. Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Bariatric Surgical Procedures: Is There an Ideal Antimicrobial Agent? Surg Infect (Larchmt), 2020.PMID 32109196
35. [35]Sarkhosh K, et al. The impact of bariatric surgery on obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review. Obes Surg, 2013.PMID 23299507
36. [36]Mechanick JI, et al. CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR THE PERIOPERATIVE NUTRITION, METABOLIC, AND NONSURGICAL SUPPORT OF PATIENTS UNDERGOING BARIATRIC PROCEDURES - 2019 UPDATE: COSPONSORED BY AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS/AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY, THE OBESITY SOCIETY, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR METABOLIC & BARIATRIC SURGERY, OBESITY MEDICINE ASSOCIATION, AND AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGISTS - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Endocr Pract, 2019.PMID 31682518
37. [37]Saarinen I, et al. Nutritional deficiencies after sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass at 10 years: secondary analysis of the SLEEVEPASS randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg, 2025.PMID 40613787