Kathryn B Muir1, William V Rice2. 1. Department of Surgery, William Beaumont Army Medical Center, 5005 N. Piedras, ATTN: DOS, El Paso, TX, 79920, USA. kathryn.b.muir.mil@mail.mil. 2. Department of Surgery, William Beaumont Army Medical Center, 5005 N. Piedras, ATTN: DOS, El Paso, TX, 79920, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become a primary stand-alone procedure for weight-loss surgery. The standard technique for LSG involves several small abdominal incisions. The single port instrument delivery extended reach (SPIDER(®)) surgical system has been introduced as a single site modality. This technique has been described previously; however, weight-loss outcomes of SPIDER(®) sleeve gastrectomy have not been compared to multi-port LSG. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database. All cases were performed by a single surgeon between August 2011 and September 2013. Thirty-two patients underwent SPIDER(®) sleeve gastrectomy, while 30 underwent LSG. Primary outcomes were change in BMI and percent excess weight loss (%EWL) at 6 months post-operatively. Secondary outcomes included: operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and complications. RESULTS: There were no demographic differences between cohorts except initial BMI (SPIDER(®) = 42.1, LSG = 46.5, p < 0.001). Mean %EWL at 6 months post-operatively was higher in the SPIDER(®) cohort (59.1 vs. 48.3 %, p < 0.005). Similarly there was a lower mean BMI at 6 months post-operatively in the SPIDER(®) cohort (31.1 vs. 35.5, p < 0.0001). The net change in BMI for each cohort was equivalent (SPIDER(®) = 11.1, LSG = 11.0, p = 0.95). Mean operative time was longer in SPIDER(®) cases (104.6 vs. 90.7 min, p < 0.02), while EBL was equivalent (32.1 vs. 34.3 mL, p = 0.56). There was one post-operative hemorrhage requiring laparoscopic clot evacuation in the SPIDER(®) cohort, and one wound infection in the LSG cohort. CONCLUSIONS: SPIDER(®) sleeve gastrectomy is not inferior to LSG with regard to decrease in BMI and %EWL at 6-months post-operatively. The higher %EWL observed in the SPIDER(®) cohort is likely due to patient selection bias. This study demonstrates that the SPIDER(®) technique is a viable alternative to LSG with similar weight-loss outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become a primary stand-alone procedure for weight-loss surgery. The standard technique for LSG involves several small abdominal incisions. The single port instrument delivery extended reach (SPIDER(®)) surgical system has been introduced as a single site modality. This technique has been described previously; however, weight-loss outcomes of SPIDER(®) sleeve gastrectomy have not been compared to multi-port LSG. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database. All cases were performed by a single surgeon between August 2011 and September 2013. Thirty-two patients underwent SPIDER(®) sleeve gastrectomy, while 30 underwent LSG. Primary outcomes were change in BMI and percent excess weight loss (%EWL) at 6 months post-operatively. Secondary outcomes included: operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and complications. RESULTS: There were no demographic differences between cohorts except initial BMI (SPIDER(®) = 42.1, LSG = 46.5, p < 0.001). Mean %EWL at 6 months post-operatively was higher in the SPIDER(®) cohort (59.1 vs. 48.3 %, p < 0.005). Similarly there was a lower mean BMI at 6 months post-operatively in the SPIDER(®) cohort (31.1 vs. 35.5, p < 0.0001). The net change in BMI for each cohort was equivalent (SPIDER(®) = 11.1, LSG = 11.0, p = 0.95). Mean operative time was longer in SPIDER(®) cases (104.6 vs. 90.7 min, p < 0.02), while EBL was equivalent (32.1 vs. 34.3 mL, p = 0.56). There was one post-operative hemorrhage requiring laparoscopic clot evacuation in the SPIDER(®) cohort, and one wound infection in the LSG cohort. CONCLUSIONS: SPIDER(®) sleeve gastrectomy is not inferior to LSG with regard to decrease in BMI and %EWL at 6-months post-operatively. The higher %EWL observed in the SPIDER(®) cohort is likely due to patient selection bias. This study demonstrates that the SPIDER(®) technique is a viable alternative to LSG with similar weight-loss outcomes.
Authors: Monica T Young; Alana Gebhart; Racha Khalaf; Nojan Toomari; Stephen Vu; Brian Smith; Ninh T Nguyen Journal: Am Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Nancy Puzziferri; Thomas B Roshek; Helen G Mayo; Ryan Gallagher; Steven H Belle; Edward H Livingston Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: José Ignacio Fernández Fernández; Carlos O Farías; Cristián L Ovalle; Carolina S Cabrera; Jaime C de la Maza Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Salvador Morales-Conde; Andrea Peeters; Yannick M Meyer; Stavros A Antoniou; Isaías Alarcón Del Agua; Alberto Arezzo; Simone Arolfo; Amir Ben Yehuda; Luigi Boni; Elisa Cassinotti; Giovanni Dapri; Tao Yang; Sofie Fransen; Antonello Forgione; Shahab Hajibandeh; Shahin Hajibandeh; Michele Mazzola; Marco Migliore; Christof Mittermair; Doris Mittermair; Antonio Morandeira-Rivas; Carlos Moreno-Sanz; Andrea Morlacchi; Eran Nizri; Myrthe Nuijts; Jonas Raakow; Francisco M Sánchez-Margallo; Juan A Sánchez-Margallo; Amir Szold; Helmut Weiss; Michael Weiss; Ricardo Zorron; Nicole D Bouvy Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 4.584