4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Then and Now : An Updated Systematic Review of the Progress and Short-term Outcomes Over the Last 5 Years

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is considered one of the most popular bariatric surgeries of the present time. This review aimed to evaluate the progress and short-term outcomes of LSG over the last 5 years.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Early experience with two-stage laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as an alternative in the super-super obese patient.

          Surgical management of the supersuper obese patient (BMI >60 kg/m2) has been a challenging problem associated with higher morbidity, mortality, and long-term weight loss failure. Current limited experience exists with a two-stage biliopancreatic diversion and duodenal switch in the supersuper obese patient, and we now present our early experience with a two-stage gastric bypass for these patients. We completed a retrospective bariatric database and chart review of super-super obese patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a first-stage procedure followed by laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as a second-stage for more definitive treatment of obesity. During a two-year period, 7 patients with BMI 58-71 kg/m2 underwent a two-stage laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass by two surgeons at the Mount Sinai Medical Center. 3 patients were female, 4 patients were male, and the average age was 43. Prior to the sleeve gastrectomy, the mean weight was 181 kg with a BMI of 63. Average time between procedures was 11 months. Prior to the second-stage procedure, the mean weight was 145 kg with a BMI of 50 and average excess weight loss of 37 kg (33% EWL). Six patients have had follow-up after the second-stage procedure with an average of 2.5 months. At follow-up the mean weight was 126 kg with a BMI of 44 and average excess weight loss of 51 kg (46% EWL). The mean operative times for the two procedures were 124 and 158 minutes respectively. The average length of stay for all procedures was 2.7 days. 4 patients had 5 complications, which included splenic injury, proximal anastomotic stricture, left arm nerve praxia, trocar site hernia, and urinary tract infection. There were no mortalities in the series. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with second-stage Roux-en-Y gastric bypass are feasible and effective procedures based on short-term results. This two-stage approach is a reasonable alternative for surgical treatment of the high-risk supersuper obese patient.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as an initial weight-loss procedure for high-risk patients with morbid obesity.

            The surgical treatment of obesity in the high-risk, high-body-mass-index (BMI) (>60) patient remains a challenge. Major morbidity and mortality in these patients can approach 38% and 6%, respectively. In an effort to achieve more favorable outcomes, we have employed a two-stage approach to such high-risk patients. This study evaluates our initial outcomes with this technique. In this study, patients underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) as a first stage during the period January 2002-February 2004. After achieving significant weight loss and reduction in co-morbidities, these patients then proceeded with the second stage, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGBP). During this time, 126 patients underwent LSG (53% female). The mean age was 49.5 +/- 0.9 years, and the mean BMI was 65.3 +/- 0.8 (range 45-91). Operative risk assessment determined that 42% were American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score (ASA) III and 52% were ASA IV. The mean number of co-morbid conditions per patient was 9.3 +/- 0.3 with a median of 10 (range 3-17). There was one distant mortality and the incidence of major complications was 13%. Mean excess weight after LSG at 1 year was 46%. Thirty-six patients with a mean BMI of 49.1 +/- 1.3 (excess weight loss, EWL, 38%) had the second-stage LRYGBP. The mean number of co-morbidities in this group was 6.4 +/- 0.1 (reduced from 9). The ASA class of the majority of patients had been downstaged at the time of LRYGB. The mean time interval between the first and second stages was 12.6 +/- 0.8 months. The mean and median hospital stays were 3 +/- 1.7 and 2.5 (range 2-7) days, respectively. There were no deaths, and the incidence of major complications was 8%. The staging concept of LSG followed by LRYGBP is a safe and effective surgical approach for high-risk patients seeking bariatric surgery.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A review of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity.

              Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is an innovative approach to the surgical management of morbid obesity. Weight loss may be achieved by restrictive and endocrine mechanisms. Early data suggest LSG is efficacious in the management of morbid obesity and may have an important role either as a staged or definitive procedure. A systematic review of the literature analyzing the clinical and operational outcomes of LSG was completed to further define the status of LSG as an emerging treatment modality for morbid obesity. Data from LSG were compared to benchmark clinical data and local operational data from laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) and laparoscopic gastric bypass (LRYGB). Fifteen studies (940 patients) were identified following systematic review. The percent excessive weight loss (%EWL) for LSG varied from 33% to 90% and appeared to be sustained up to 3 years. The mortality rate was 0-3.3% and major complications ranged from 0% to 29% (average 12.1%). Operative time ranged from 49 to 143 min (average 100.4 min). Hospital stay varied from 1.9 to 8 days (average 4.4 days). The operational impact of LSG has not been described in the literature. According to data from the Royal Alexandra Hospital, the estimated total cost of LSG was $10,317 CAD as compared to LAGB ($7,536 CAD) and LRYGB ($11,666 CAD). These costs did not include further surgical interventions which may be required for an undefined group of patients after LSG. Early, non-randomized data suggest that LSG is efficacious in the surgical management of morbid obesity. However, it is not clear if weight loss following LSG is sustainable in the long term and therefore it is not possible to determine what percent of patients may require further revisional surgery following LSG. The operational impact of LSG as a staged or definitive procedure is poorly defined and must be analyzed further in order to establish its overall health care costs and operational impact. Although LSG is a promising treatment option for patients with morbid obesity, its role remains undefined and it should be considered an investigational procedure that may require revision in a subset of patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques
                Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                1530-4515
                2017
                October 2017
                : 27
                : 5
                : 307-317
                Article
                10.1097/SLE.0000000000000418
                28590359
                dd64bd0c-bf2d-4ae4-99c4-9869bb4cd586
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article