Manabu Amiki1, Yosuke Seki2, Kazunori Kasama1, Srinivasulu Pachimatla3, Michiko Kitagawa1, Akiko Umezawa1, Yoshimochi Kurokawa1. 1. Weight loss and Metabolic Surgery Center, Yotsuya Medical Cube, 7-7 Nibancho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 102-0084, Japan. 2. Weight loss and Metabolic Surgery Center, Yotsuya Medical Cube, 7-7 Nibancho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 102-0084, Japan. y-seki@mcube.jp. 3. Ramdev Rao Memorial General Hospital, Sivananda Rehabilitation Home, National Highway No. 65 Metro Pillar No. 34, Kukutpally Hyderabad, Telangana, 500072, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery remains controversial due to technical challenges that can lead to suboptimal outcomes, and data pertaining to operative and clinical outcomes of reduced-port sleeve gastrectomy (RPSG) vs. conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG) are lacking. AIMS: This retrospective case-matched study aimed to compare midterm (2-year) outcomes of RPSG and of CLSG. METHODS: Patients included in the study had undergone laparoscopic bariatric surgery at our center between 2010 and 2017. Thirty-one consecutive female patients who underwent RPSG were compared to a sex-, age-, body mass index-matched group of 31 patients who underwent CLSG. Outcomes were evaluated and compared between groups. RESULTS: Estimated blood loss volume, incidences of intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of postoperative hospital stay did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Operation time was significantly greater in the RPSG group than in the CLSG group (148.7 ± 22.6 vs. 120.2 ± 25.9 min, respectively; p < 0.001). Excess weight loss at 1 year was 105.9% and 109.7%, respectively (p = 0.94) and at 2 years was 101.1% and 105.3%, respectively (p = 0.64). One RPSG patient required placement of additional trocars because of bleeding from short gastric vessels, but conversion to open surgery was not required. CONCLUSIONS: RPSG is feasible in carefully selected bariatric patients and results in midterm outcomes comparable to those observed after CLSG. Good cosmesis is a potential benefit of RPSG.
BACKGROUND: Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery remains controversial due to technical challenges that can lead to suboptimal outcomes, and data pertaining to operative and clinical outcomes of reduced-port sleeve gastrectomy (RPSG) vs. conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG) are lacking. AIMS: This retrospective case-matched study aimed to compare midterm (2-year) outcomes of RPSG and of CLSG. METHODS:Patients included in the study had undergone laparoscopic bariatric surgery at our center between 2010 and 2017. Thirty-one consecutive female patients who underwent RPSG were compared to a sex-, age-, body mass index-matched group of 31 patients who underwent CLSG. Outcomes were evaluated and compared between groups. RESULTS: Estimated blood loss volume, incidences of intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of postoperative hospital stay did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Operation time was significantly greater in the RPSG group than in the CLSG group (148.7 ± 22.6 vs. 120.2 ± 25.9 min, respectively; p < 0.001). Excess weight loss at 1 year was 105.9% and 109.7%, respectively (p = 0.94) and at 2 years was 101.1% and 105.3%, respectively (p = 0.64). One RPSG patient required placement of additional trocars because of bleeding from short gastric vessels, but conversion to open surgery was not required. CONCLUSIONS: RPSG is feasible in carefully selected bariatric patients and results in midterm outcomes comparable to those observed after CLSG. Good cosmesis is a potential benefit of RPSG.
Authors: Paul G Curcillo; Andrew S Wu; Erica R Podolsky; Casey Graybeal; Namir Katkhouda; Alex Saenz; Robert Dunham; Steven Fendley; Marc Neff; Chad Copper; Marc Bessler; Andrew A Gumbs; Michael Norton; Antonio Iannelli; Rodney Mason; Ashkan Moazzez; Larry Cohen; Angela Mouhlas; Alex Poor Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-02-05 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jeffrey M Marks; Melissa S Phillips; Roberto Tacchino; Kurt Roberts; Raymond Onders; George DeNoto; Gary Gecelter; Eugene Rubach; Homero Rivas; Arsalla Islam; Nathaniel Soper; Paraskevas Paraskeva; Alexander Rosemurgy; Sharona Ross; Sajani Shah Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 6.113