4.7 Article

Long term predictors of success after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 12, Issue 5, Pages 504-508

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.02.008

Keywords

Morbid obesity; Bougie size; Gastrectomy; Leak

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To evaluate early, mid and long term efficacy of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a definitive management of morbid obesity and to study factors that may predict its success. Materials and methods: A retrospective study was conducted by reviewing the database of patients who underwent LSG as a definitive bariatric procedure, from April 2005 to March 2013. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed. Results: 1395 patients were included in this study. Mean age was 33 years and women: men ratio was 74:26. The mean preoperative BMI was 46 kg/m(2). Operative time was 113 + 29 min. Reinforcement of staple line was done only in 447 (32%) cases. 11 (0.79%) cases developed postoperative leak, with total number of complications 72 (5.1%) and 0% mortality. Percentage of excess weight loss (% EWL) was 42%, 53%, 61%, 73%, 67%, 61%, 59% and 57% at 6 months, 1-7 years. Remission of diabetes (DM), hypertension (HTN) and hyperlipidaemia (HLP) occurred 69%, 54% and 43% respectively. 56 (4%) patients underwent revision surgery, for insufficient weight loss (n = 37) and severe reflux symptoms (n = 9). Mean follow up was 76 +/- 19 (range: 6-103) months. Smaller bougie size and leaving smaller antrum were associated with significant % EWL. Bougie <= 36F remained significant in multivariate analysis. Conclusion: This study supports safety, effectiveness and durability of LSG as a sole definitive bariatric procedure. Smaller bougie size and shorter distance from pylorus were associated with significant % EWL. (C) 2014 Surgical Associates Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available