4.4 Article

Is the residual gastric volume after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy an objective criterion for adapting the treatment strategy after failure?

Journal

SURGERY FOR OBESITY AND RELATED DISEASES
Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages 660-666

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2012.11.010

Keywords

Gastric volumetry; Bariatric surgery; Sleeve Gastrectomy; Gastric volume

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Causes of failure after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are not known but may include a high residual gastric volume (RGV). The aim of this study was to use gastric computed tomography volumetry (GCTV) to investigate the RGV and relate the latter parameter to the outcome of LSG. Methods: A single-center, prospective study included patients with >24 months of follow-up after LSG. The RGV was measured with a unique GCTV technique. We determined the LSG outcomes according to a variety of criteria and examined potential relationships with the RGV. When the RGV was >250 cc, we offered a repeat LSG (RLSG). Results: Seventy-six patients were included. The mean RGV was 255 cc but differed significantly when comparing failure and success subgroups, regardless of whether the latter were defined by a percentage of excess weight loss >50 (309 cc versus 225 cc, respectively; P = .0003), a BARDS score >3 (312 cc versus 234 cc; P = .005), the Reinhold criteria (290 cc versus 235 cc; P = .019), or the Biron criteria (308 cc versus 237 cc; P = .008). The RGV threshold (corresponding to the volume above which the probability of failure after LSG is high) was 225 cc. Fifteen RLSGs were performed during the inclusion period. Conclusion: A high RGV 34 months after LSG is a risk factor for failure. Knowledge of the RGV can be of value in the management of failure after LSG. (C) 2013 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available