4.4 Article

Comparison of Two Types of Liver Retractors in Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Morbid Obesity

Journal

OBESITY SURGERY
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 233-237

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-019-04142-6

Keywords

Liver retraction; Nathanson retractor; PretzelFlex retractor; Bariatric surgery; Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; LRYGB

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Retraction of the left lobe of the liver is an important step in most bariatric surgical procedures. Bariatric patients may have enlarged, fatty livers and retraction can be complicated with injuries, haematoma, or necrosis. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two standard liver retractors, Nathanson and PretzelFlex on patients undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Methods All consecutive patients undergoing LRYGB in our center from April 2017 to January 2019 were analysed. The type of retractor used was dependent on the surgeon's preference and the availability of instruments. Patients were divided into two groups, based on the type of liver retraction device used. Each group was assessed and compared for postoperative pain score, presence of nausea or vomiting, blood test results (liver function tests and C-reactive protein), and length of hospital stay. Results LRYGB was performed on 167 patients in which Nathanson was used in 93 patients and PretzelFlex in 74 patients. The duration of surgery was similar in both groups. Alanine transaminase (ALT) levels and C-reactive protein (CRP) were significantly higher in the group where Nathanson's retractor was used. The postoperative pain score and length of stay were also higher when Nathanson's retractor was used but it did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion The PretzelFlex liver retractor causes significantly less measurable liver damage and is associated with less postoperative pain and nausea when compared with Nathanson's retractor.

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