Adel Alhaj Saleh1,2, Michal R Janik3,4, Rami R Mustafa3, Mohammed Alshehri3, Adil H Khan3, Seyed Mohammad Kalantar Motamedi3, Shiraz Rahim3, Indravadan Patel3, Amir Aryaie3,5, Mujjahid Abbas3, Tomasz Rogula3, Leena Khaitan6. 1. Department of Surgery/ Bariatric Division, University Hospitals, Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44121, USA. adel_medicine@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, School of Medicine, Lubbock, TX, USA. adel_medicine@yahoo.com. 3. Department of Surgery/ Bariatric Division, University Hospitals, Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44121, USA. 4. Department of General, Oncologic, Metabolic and Thoracic Surgery, Military Institute of Medicine, Szaserów, 04-141, Warszawa, Poland. 5. Department of Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, School of Medicine, Lubbock, TX, USA. 6. Department of Surgery/ Bariatric Division, University Hospitals, Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44121, USA. Leena.Khaitan@uhhospitals.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is one of the most common procedures performed for weight loss. Many seek the "perfect sleeve" with the notion that the type of calibrating device affects sleeve shape, and this in turn will affect outcomes and complications. Two major concerns after SG are amount of weight loss and acid reflux. Our aim was to determine if the various calibration methods could impact sleeve shape and thereby allow for better outcomes of weight loss and reflux. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of 210 patients who underwent SG and had postoperative upper gastrointestinal (UGI) study from 2011 to 2015 in a single center by a single (fellowship-trained) bariatric surgeon. Data regarding demographics, calibrating devices and clinical outcomes at 1 year (weight loss and de novo acid reflux) were collected. UGIs were reviewed by two radiologists blinded to the clinical outcomes. Sleeve shape was classified according to a previously described classification as tubular, dumbbell, upper pouch, or lower pouch. The types of calibrating devices used to guide the sleeve size intraoperatively were endoscopy, large-bore orogastric tube, and fenestrated suction tube. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-nine patients met inclusion criteria (11 had no esophagram). Demographics revealed age 45.76 ± 10.6 years, BMI 47 ± 8.6 kg/m2, and 82% female. Calibration devices used were endoscopic guidance (7.6%), large bore orogastric tube (41.4%), and fenestrated suction tube (50.5%). Sleeve shape was reported as 32.6% tubular, 20.6% dumbbell, 39.2% lower pouch, and 7.5% upper pouch (100% interrater reliability). No correlation was seen with type of calibration used. Of patients, 62.0% had > 50% excess weight loss at 1 year. Twenty-three percent of patients remained on PPI at 1 year (of which 43.3% did not have reflux preoperatively). The lower pouch shape showed a trend toward less reflux and more weight loss. CONCLUSION: This study showed no clear association between uniformity of sleeve shape and the type of calibration device used. The study showed a trend toward decreased reflux and improved weight loss with the lower pouch shape, regardless of calibration device.
INTRODUCTION: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is one of the most common procedures performed for weight loss. Many seek the "perfect sleeve" with the notion that the type of calibrating device affects sleeve shape, and this in turn will affect outcomes and complications. Two major concerns after SG are amount of weight loss and acid reflux. Our aim was to determine if the various calibration methods could impact sleeve shape and thereby allow for better outcomes of weight loss and reflux. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of 210 patients who underwent SG and had postoperative upper gastrointestinal (UGI) study from 2011 to 2015 in a single center by a single (fellowship-trained) bariatric surgeon. Data regarding demographics, calibrating devices and clinical outcomes at 1 year (weight loss and de novo acid reflux) were collected. UGIs were reviewed by two radiologists blinded to the clinical outcomes. Sleeve shape was classified according to a previously described classification as tubular, dumbbell, upper pouch, or lower pouch. The types of calibrating devices used to guide the sleeve size intraoperatively were endoscopy, large-bore orogastric tube, and fenestrated suction tube. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-nine patients met inclusion criteria (11 had no esophagram). Demographics revealed age 45.76 ± 10.6 years, BMI 47 ± 8.6 kg/m2, and 82% female. Calibration devices used were endoscopic guidance (7.6%), large bore orogastric tube (41.4%), and fenestrated suction tube (50.5%). Sleeve shape was reported as 32.6% tubular, 20.6% dumbbell, 39.2% lower pouch, and 7.5% upper pouch (100% interrater reliability). No correlation was seen with type of calibration used. Of patients, 62.0% had > 50% excess weight loss at 1 year. Twenty-three percent of patients remained on PPI at 1 year (of which 43.3% did not have reflux preoperatively). The lower pouch shape showed a trend toward less reflux and more weight loss. CONCLUSION: This study showed no clear association between uniformity of sleeve shape and the type of calibration device used. The study showed a trend toward decreased reflux and improved weight loss with the lower pouch shape, regardless of calibration device.
Entities:
Keywords:
Reflux; Shape; Sleeve gastrectomy; Weight loss
Authors: Juliana C N Chan; Vasanti Malik; Weiping Jia; Takashi Kadowaki; Chittaranjan S Yajnik; Kun-Ho Yoon; Frank B Hu Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-05-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elizabeth R Berger; Ronald H Clements; John M Morton; Kristopher M Huffman; Bruce M Wolfe; Ninh T Nguyen; Clifford Y Ko; Matthew M Hutter Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: F B Langer; M A Reza Hoda; A Bohdjalian; F X Felberbauer; J Zacherl; E Wenzl; K Schindler; A Luger; B Ludvik; G Prager Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.129