Five-year Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy As a Primary Procedure for Morbid Obesity: A Prospective Study
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Aim: To prospectively evaluate the postoperative morbi-mortality and weight loss evolution of patients who underwent a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) as a primary bariatric procedure during 5 years of follow-up.
Methods: Since 2006, data from patients undergoing a highly restrictive primary LSG have been prospectively registered in a database and analysed. Preoperative co-morbid conditions, operating time, hospital stay, early and late complications rate and evolution of weight loss after 5 years of follow-up were analysed.
Results: A total of 156 patients were included, 74.3% of whom were women. The mean age was 43.2 ± 13.1 years and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 41.5 ± 7.9 kg/m. Seventy patients (44.8%) presented a BMI under 40 kg/m. The mortality rate was 0%. The leakage rate was 1.2%, and the total 30-d morbidity rate was 5.1% (8/156). With a mean follow-up of 32.7 ± 28.5 (range 6-112) mo, the mean percent of excess of weight loss (%EWL) was 82.0 ± 18.8 at 1 year, 76.7 ± 21.3 at 3 years and 60.3 ± 28.9 at 5 years. The mean percent of excess of BMI loss (%EBMIL) was 94.9 ± 22.4 at 1 year, 89.4 ± 27.4 at 3 years and 74.8 ± 29.4 at 5 years. Patients with preoperative BMI less than 40 kg/m achieved greater weight loss than did the overall study population. Diabetes remitted in 75% of the patients and HTA improved in 71.7%. CPAP masks were withdrawn in all patients with obstructive sleep apnoea.
Conclusion: LSG built with a narrow 34 F bougie and starting 3 cm from the pylorus proved to be safe and highly effective in terms of weight loss as a stand-alone procedure, particularly in patients with a preoperative BMI lower than 40 kg/m.
Predictive factors for readmission after bariatric surgery: Experience of an obesity center.
Rashdan M, Al-Sabe L, Salameh M, Halaseh S, Al-Mikhi B, Shabin S Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103(32):e39242.
PMID: 39121271 PMC: 11315472. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000039242.
Lytvyak E, Zarrinpar A, Dalle Ore C, Lee E, Yazdani-Boset K, Horgan S Obes Pillars. 2024; 11:100111.
PMID: 38770521 PMC: 11103426. DOI: 10.1016/j.obpill.2024.100111.
Khushaim L, Alhazmi A, Omayer I, Alqahtani M, Alsalama A, Alsulami A Cureus. 2023; 15(11):e48662.
PMID: 38090469 PMC: 10711325. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.48662.
Jawhari A, Alrashed A, AlGhamdi H, AlOtaibi A, Alshareef K, Alzahrani K Cureus. 2023; 14(12):e32754.
PMID: 36686102 PMC: 9851730. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.32754.
Is staple line reinforcement still needed on contemporary staplers? A benchtop analysis.
Chand B, Meyers C Surg Endosc. 2022; 37(2):1274-1281.
PMID: 36175699 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09644-6.