BACKGROUND: Causes of failure after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are not known but may include a high residual gastric volume (RGV). The aim of this study was to use gastric computed tomography volumetry (GCTV) to investigate the RGV and relate the latter parameter to the outcome of LSG. METHODS: A single-center, prospective study included patients with>24 months of follow-up after LSG. The RGV was measured with a unique GCTV technique. We determined the LSG outcomes according to a variety of criteria and examined potential relationships with the RGV. When the RGV was>250 cc, we offered a repeat LSG (RLSG). RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were included. The mean RGV was 255 cc but differed significantly when comparing "failure" and "success" subgroups, regardless of whether the latter were defined by a percentage of excess weight loss>50 (309 cc versus 225 cc, respectively; P = .0003), a BAROS score>3 (312 cc versus 234 cc; P = .005), the Reinhold criteria (290 cc versus 235 cc; P = .019), or the Biron criteria (308 cc versus 237 cc; P = .008). The RGV threshold (corresponding to the volume above which the probability of failure after LSG is high) was 225 cc. Fifteen RLSGs were performed during the inclusion period. CONCLUSION: A high RGV 34 months after LSG is a risk factor for failure. Knowledge of the RGV can be of value in the management of failure after LSG.
BACKGROUND: Causes of failure after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are not known but may include a high residual gastric volume (RGV). The aim of this study was to use gastric computed tomography volumetry (GCTV) to investigate the RGV and relate the latter parameter to the outcome of LSG. METHODS: A single-center, prospective study included patients with>24 months of follow-up after LSG. The RGV was measured with a unique GCTV technique. We determined the LSG outcomes according to a variety of criteria and examined potential relationships with the RGV. When the RGV was>250 cc, we offered a repeat LSG (RLSG). RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were included. The mean RGV was 255 cc but differed significantly when comparing "failure" and "success" subgroups, regardless of whether the latter were defined by a percentage of excess weight loss>50 (309 cc versus 225 cc, respectively; P = .0003), a BAROS score>3 (312 cc versus 234 cc; P = .005), the Reinhold criteria (290 cc versus 235 cc; P = .019), or the Biron criteria (308 cc versus 237 cc; P = .008). The RGV threshold (corresponding to the volume above which the probability of failure after LSG is high) was 225 cc. Fifteen RLSGs were performed during the inclusion period. CONCLUSION: A high RGV 34 months after LSG is a risk factor for failure. Knowledge of the RGV can be of value in the management of failure after LSG.
Authors: Mohamed H A Fahmy; Mohamed D Sarhan; Ayman M A Osman; Ahmad Badran; Amr Ayad; Dalia K Serour; Hany A Balamoun; Mohamed E Salim Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Manuel Ferrer-Márquez; Juan José García-Díaz; Almudena Moreno-Serrano; José Miguel García-Díez; Manuel Ferrer-Ayza; Raquel Alarcón-Rodríguez; Enrique G Artero; Alberto Soriano-Maldonado Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 4.129