In Reply We interpret the letter from Gagner regarding our 26-year report of revisional surgery in the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) study1 as yet another contribution to the current dispute of pros and cons of gastric bypass (GBP) vs sleeve gastrectomy. Gagner is a strong advocate of sleeve gastrectomy,2 and he predicts that this surgical method will be a “mass treatment for the global epidemic of severe obesity and diabetes.”3 However, the SOS study was started more than 30 years ago, and sleeve gastrectomy has only been widely used during the last decade. Thus, the results of the SOS study cannot contribute to the choice between these 2 procedures.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Näslund I, Hjorth S, Carlsson LMS. Revisions of Gastric Bypass—A Moral Obligation—Reply. JAMA Surg. Published online June 19, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1741
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: