4.4 Review

Laparoscopic Greater Curvature Plication and Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Treatments for Obesity: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Short- and Mid-Term Results

期刊

OBESITY SURGERY
卷 28, 期 10, 页码 3199-3212

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-018-3330-9

关键词

Obesity; Bariatric surgical procedures; Weight loss; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Laparoscopic greater curvature plication (LGP) has recently emerged as a new bariatric procedure. This surgery provides gastric restriction without resection, which could potentially provide a lower risk alternative, with fewer complications. The real benefit of this technique in the short and long term is unknown. This systematic review aims to compare laparoscopic gastric plication and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for obesity treatment. Clinical trials were identified in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, LILACS, BVS, SCOPUS, and CINAHL databases. Comparison of LGP and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) included hospital stay, operative time, loss of hunger feeling, body mass index loss (BMIL), percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), complications, symptoms in the postoperative period, and comorbidity remission or improvement. This systematic review search included 17,423 records. Eight studies were selected for meta-analysis. There is no difference in operative time, hospital stay, and complications. Patients in the SG group had improved loss of hunger feeling. BMIL was better in the SG group at 12 and 24 months [mean difference (MD) - 2.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 3.10 to - 1.28, and MD - 4.59, 95% CI - 5.55 to - 3.63, respectively]. SG showed improved %EWL compared with gastric plication in 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. However, no difference was found in %EWL long-term results (24 and 36 months). Patients who underwent LGP had more sialorrhea. SG showed better results in diabetes remission. SG showed improved weight loss when compared with LGP, with better satiety, fewer symptoms in the postoperative period, and improved diabetes remission.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据