| Literature DB >> 20593246 |
Chih-Kun Huang1, Sheng-Fa Yao, Chi-Hsien Lo, Jer-Yiing Houng, Yaw-Sen Chen, Po-Huang Lee.
Abstract
Conventional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is a gold standard for bariatric surgery, but the procedure requires five to seven incisions for placement of multiple trocars and thus may produce less-than-ideal cosmetic results. We have developed a new approach, single-incision transumbilical LRYGB (SITU-LRYGB) to treat morbid obesity. We compared the surgical results and patient satisfaction in a study of five-port LRYGB and SITU-LRYGB. Fifty morbidly obese patients (14 males, 36 females) underwent either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with five-port LRYGB or the SITU-LRYGB approach. During the operation, we used a novel intraoperative liver traction method with a "liver suspension tape" that we specifically designed for SITU-LRYGB. Compared to five-port surgery with SITU-LRYGB, there were no intraoperative complications, wound healing was excellent, and there was no abdominal scarring. SITU surgical time was longer than that with five-port LRYGB (99.8 vs. 67.6 min, P < 0.001). Patients treated with the five-port method were more obese than those in the SITU group (127.9 vs. 112.4 kg, P = 0.016). After the bariatric surgery, no difference in comorbidity was found in both groups. Patient satisfaction was greater with SITU than with the five-port method (4.48 vs. 3.96, P = 0.006). Roux-en-Y gastric bypass can be successfully achieved via a single umbilical incision, a method that provides a short operative time and good recovery and eliminates abdominal scarring.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20593246 PMCID: PMC2941085 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-010-0218-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Obes Surg ISSN: 0960-8923 Impact factor: 4.129
Patient satisfaction score
| Very unsatisfied | Unsatisfied | Acceptable | Satisfied | Very satisfied | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Fig. 1Omega-shaped 6-cm skin incision in SITU-LRYGB. The blue area will be excised during a plasty process after the initial operation
Fig. 2a Triangular position of trocars in SITU-LRYGB. b The position of trocars and liver retractor in five-port LRYGB
Characteristics of 50 patients
| Surgical method |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| SITU-LRYGB ( | 5-port LRYGB ( | ||
| Gendera | 0.059 | ||
| Female | 21 (84.0%) | 15 (60.0%) | |
| Male | 4 (16.0%) | 10 (40.0%) | |
| Age (years)b | 29.88 ± 6.28 | 29.88 ± 6.43 | 1.000 |
| Height (cm)b | 163.42 ± 5.91 | 167.27 ± 10.73 | 0.125 |
| Weight (kg)b | 112.42 ± 17.39 | 127.93 ± 25.58 | 0.016* |
| BMI (kg/m2)b | 41.91 ± 5.09 | 45.31 ± 5.33 | 0.026* |
| Comorbid conditions | |||
| Hyperlipidemiaa | 11 (44.0%) | 8 (32.0%) | 0.560 |
| Nonalcoholic steatohepatitisa | 8 (32.0%) | 14 (56.0%) | 0.154 |
| Hypertensiona | 5 (20.0%) | 11 (44.0%) | 0.130 |
| Diabetes mellitusa | 5 (20.0%) | 3 (12.0%) | 0.700 |
| Hyperuricemiaa | 4 (16.0%) | 6 (24.0%) | 0.724 |
| Gallstonesc | 1 (4.0%) | 1 (4.0%) | 0.470 |
| Osteoarthritisc | 1 (4.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1.000 |
Continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation and categorical variables were presented as number (percent)
SITU single-incision transumbilical
*P < 0.05 (statistically significant difference between the two groups)
a P values were calculated by chi-square test
b P values were calculated by independent t test
c P values were calculated by Fisher’s exact test
A comparison of surgical results in 50 patients
| Surgical method |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| SITU-LRYGB ( | 5-port LRYGB ( | ||
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| Operation time (min) | 99.8 ± 11.14 | 67.56 ± 20.52 | <0.001* |
| Hospital stay (days) | 1.12 ± 0.43 | 1.08 ± 0.27 | 0.702 |
| Frequency of morphine injections | 2.56 ± 2.06 | 1.68 ± 1.28 | 0.078 |
| 1st EWL (%) | 19.55 ± 6.26 | 19.20 ± 6.02 | 0.843 |
| 3rd EWL (%) | 40.19 ± 9.21 | 38.96 ± 9.27 | 0.641 |
| 6th EWL (%) | 54.92 ± 8.87 | 51.57 ± 14.59 | 0.332 |
| 9th EWL (%) | 65.98 ± 10.17 | 68.36 ± 12.07 | 0.465 |
| 12th EWL (%) | 70.86 ± 11.75 | 78.20 ± 13.59 | 0.225 |
| Wound satisfaction score | 4.48 ± 0.58 | 3.96 ± 0.67 | 0.006* |
SITU single-incision transumbilical, SD standard deviation, EWL excess weight loss
*P < 0.05 (statistically significant difference between the two groups)
aIndependent t test was used
Fig. 3Cosmetic outcome of a SITU wound after umbilicoplasty