http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21803660

For me, the key was long term risks, higher regain rate with RNY, and the issues of vitamin/nutrient deficiencies are much higher with RNY/DS vs. VSG for the rest of my life.

As for this particular study, this statements stood out to me:

The SG patients were significantly older than the RYGB and BPD-DS patients. Co-morbidities were significantly more frequent in the SG and BPD-DS patients. One patient died after RYGB but none did so after BPD-DS or SG. The global complication rate was significantly increased after BPD-DS (P = .0017) compared with RYGB; however, no difference was found between RYGB and SG, although bleeding was likely to appear more frequent, not only after BPD-DS, but also after SG compared with RYGB.

So, let's see there are 2 risks factors, Age and Higher Rate of co-morbidity that can skew the results of this study. It's not really comparative when there are increased risk factors with the study subjects that are being reported. For it to be a fair, and just assessment, all of the factors would have to be equal. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen in the world of bariatric studies/stats.

I totally agree with you on the importance being on the long term risks. One of the reasons I went with the band was the relatively low risk of surgical problems - of course the long term issues were considerable....

Anyway, just another interesting tidbit of info

...Looks a little bullsh*tish to me.....