Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective cohort study evaluates clinical outcomes of MEGA in patients with obesity, suggesting effectiveness and safety.
Obesity is a chronic and highly prevalent disease. Although bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment, access remains limited. Endoscopic bariatric therapies have emerged as minimally invasive alternatives. MEGA (Endoscopic Gastric Megaplication) is a modified version of POSE 2.0 that uses two G-LIX devices, a 33-mm G-PROX, and fewer sutures (mean: six) to create double gastric plications, with the goal of streamlining the procedure. To evaluate the technical reproducibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of the MEGA technique at 6 months in a multicenter cohort of patients with obesity, and to explore inter-center variability and correlations between technical and clinical outcomes. This retrospective multicenter cohort study included 54 patients with BMI (kg/m²) ≥ 27and comorbidities or BMI ≥ 30, treated with MEGA across six European centers experienced in bariatric endoscopy. Procedures were performed by local endoscopists after standardized training by a single instructor. Technical variables (number of sutures, procedure time) and clinical outcomes (%TBWL, %EBWL) were analyzed. At 6 months, mean %TBWL was 14.75 ± 6.24% (95% CI:13.05–16.45), and mean %EBWL was 56.17 ± 33.75% (95% CI: 46.96–65.39), with no significant differences among centers (p = 0.406). Overall, 81.5% of patients (95% CI: 69.2–89.6) achieved ≥ 10% TBWL. No serious adverse events were reported. No correlation was found between number of sutures and %TBWL. In this preliminary multicenter study with 6-month follow-up, the MEGA technique was associated with clinically meaningful weight loss and no serious adverse events. Larger prospective studies with long-term follow-up are needed. • “Iν τhiσ Euρoπeαν µulτiceντeρ ρeτρoσπecτive cohoρτ, τhe MEGA τechνique αchieveδ α µeαν %TBΩL oφ 14.75% ατ 6 µoντhσ, ωiτh 81.5% oφ πατieντσ ρeαchiνg > 10% TBΩL”. • “Pρoceδuραl παραµeτeρσ ωeρe βρoαδly σiµilαρ αcρoσσ παρτiciπατiνg Euρoπeαν ceντeρσ, σuππoρτiνg τhe φeασiβiliτy oφ iµπleµeντiνg τhe MEGA τechνique iν δiφφeρeντ cliνicαl σeττiνg”. • “No σeρiouσ αδveρσe eveντσ, ρeiντeρveντioνσ, πρoceδuρe-ρelατeδ ρeαδµiσσioνσ, oρ µoρταliτy ωeρe iδeντiφieδ δuρiνg φolloω-uπ”.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arau et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: