Giulio Barbiero1, Giovanna Romanucci2, Valeria Ortu1, Monica Zuliani1, Diego Miotto1, Fabio Pomerri1, Alice Albanese3, Daunia Verdi3, Luca Prevedello3, Mirto Foletto3. 1. University Radiology, Department of Medicine, University Hospital of Padua, 2 Via Giustiniani, 35128, Padua, PD, Italy. 2. University Radiology, Department of Medicine, University Hospital of Padua, 2 Via Giustiniani, 35128, Padua, PD, Italy. giovi.romanucci@libero.it. 3. Center of Excellence for Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery, University Hospital of Padua, 2 Via Giustiniani, 35128, Padua, PD, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is considered safe and effective even as conversion procedure after primary bariatric operations. The correlation between gastric pouch volumes and patients weight loss remains unclear. METHODS: To assess a correlation between the gastric remnant size and the weight loss, we reviewed 49 consecutive barium swallow UGS performed at our institute from August 2012 through May 2014 in LSG patients with symptoms and/or unsatisfactory weight loss. The anteroposterior (AP), laterolateral (LL) and vertical (CC) diameters of the gastric pouch were measured to calculate the volume by the formula of the ellipsoid (AP × LL × CC × 0.5). Patients were divided in two groups: group 1 without gastric pouch (n = 36) and group 2 with gastric pouch (n = 13). Correlation between pouch volume and weight loss data was calculated with t Student's and Fisher tests to compare the percent excess body mass index (BMI) and percent excess body mass loss (EBL) between two groups, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The mean percent EBL was 26.54 ± 11.02 and 27.12 ± 12.35 kg/m(2) in groups with and without pouch, respectively. The mean volume of the pouch after LSG was 17.13 ± 21.56 mm(3). Pouch volume, when present, was not significantly correlated to weight loss (P = 0.88 95% CI, CL 19.88-33.20 group 2; CL 22.94-31.30 group 1). CONCLUSIONS: No statistical correlation was found between the volume of the gastric pouch and weight loss (percent EBL) after LSG in symptomatic or with unsatisfactory weight loss patients.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is considered safe and effective even as conversion procedure after primary bariatric operations. The correlation between gastric pouch volumes and patientsweight loss remains unclear. METHODS: To assess a correlation between the gastric remnant size and the weight loss, we reviewed 49 consecutive barium swallow UGS performed at our institute from August 2012 through May 2014 in LSG patients with symptoms and/or unsatisfactory weight loss. The anteroposterior (AP), laterolateral (LL) and vertical (CC) diameters of the gastric pouch were measured to calculate the volume by the formula of the ellipsoid (AP × LL × CC × 0.5). Patients were divided in two groups: group 1 without gastric pouch (n = 36) and group 2 with gastric pouch (n = 13). Correlation between pouch volume and weight loss data was calculated with t Student's and Fisher tests to compare the percent excess body mass index (BMI) and percent excess body mass loss (EBL) between two groups, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The mean percent EBL was 26.54 ± 11.02 and 27.12 ± 12.35 kg/m(2) in groups with and without pouch, respectively. The mean volume of the pouch after LSG was 17.13 ± 21.56 mm(3). Pouch volume, when present, was not significantly correlated to weight loss (P = 0.88 95% CI, CL 19.88-33.20 group 2; CL 22.94-31.30 group 1). CONCLUSIONS: No statistical correlation was found between the volume of the gastric pouch and weight loss (percent EBL) after LSG in symptomatic or with unsatisfactory weight losspatients.
Authors: Antonio Iannelli; Anne Sophie Schneck; Patrick Noel; Imed Ben Amor; Daniel Krawczykowski; Jean Gugenheim Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: N Basso; D Capoccia; M Rizzello; F Abbatini; P Mariani; C Maglio; F Coccia; G Borgonuovo; M L De Luca; R Asprino; G Alessandri; G Casella; F Leonetti Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-06-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Christopher D Scheirey; Francis J Scholz; Paresh C Shah; David M Brams; Brian B Wong; Michael Pedrosa Journal: Radiographics Date: 2006 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Maurice-Pierre Pagé; Andrew Kastenmeier; Matthew Goldblatt; Matthew Frelich; Matthew Bosler; James Wallace; Jon Gould Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Sheetal Nijhawan; William Richards; Martha F O'Hea; Jonathon P Audia; Diego F Alvarez Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-08-24 Impact factor: 4.584
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
Authors: Małgorzata Deręgowska-Cylke; Piotr Palczewski; Marcin Błaż; Radosław Cylke; Paweł Ziemiański; Wojciech Szeszkowski; Wojciech Lisik; Marek Gołębiowski Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 3.479