Laparoscopic Gastric Plication versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: An Up-to-Date Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
A meta-analysis was conducted in order to provide an up-to-date comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic gastric plication (LGP) for morbid obesity.Materials and methods
The PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used for the conduction of this study. A systematic literature search was performed in the electronic databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science and Scopus). The fixed effects or random effects model was used according to the Cochran Q test.Results
Totally, 12 eligible studies were extracted. LSG displayed a statistically significant lower rate of overall complications (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.68; p=0.002) and a sustainable higher %EWL through all time endpoints (OR: 4.86, p=0.04; OR: 7.57, p < 0.00001; and OR: 13.74; p < 0.00001). There was no difference between the two techniques in terms of length of hospital stay (p=0.16), operative duration (p=0.81), reoperation rate (p=0.51), and cost (p=0.06).Conclusions
LSG was demonstrated to have a lower overall complications and a higher weight loss rate, when compared to LGP. Further RCTs of a higher methodological quality level, with a larger sample size, are required in order to validate these findings.
SUBMITTER: Perivoliotis K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6198571 | biostudies-literature | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Laparoscopic Gastric Plication versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: An Up-to-Date Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Perivoliotis Konstantinos K Sioka Eleni E Katsogridaki Georgia G Zacharoulis Dimitrios D
Journal of obesity 20181009
<h4>Introduction</h4>A meta-analysis was conducted in order to provide an up-to-date comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic gastric plication (LGP) for morbid obesity.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>The PRISMA guidelines and <i>the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions</i> were used for the conduction of this study. A systematic literature search was performed in the electronic databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science and Scopus). The fixed ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are common weight loss procedures. Our meta-analysis compared these procedures for the treatment of morbid obesity and related diseases.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through January 2018. The percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), improvement or remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension were analyzed and compared.ResultsThirty-three studies with 4109 patients were included. Greater decreases in excess weight were found in patients who received LSG at 6 months (weighted mean difference (WMD) -9.29, 95% confidence interval (CI): -15.19 to -3.40, P?=?.002), 12 months (WMD -16.67 95% CI: -24.30 to -9.05, P?<?.0001), 24 months (WMD -19.63, 95% CI: -29.00 to -10.26, P?<?.0001), and 36 months (WMD -19.28, 95% CI: -27.09 to -11.47, P?<?.0001) than in patients who received LAGB. However, there were no significant differences in the 3-month outcomes between the 2 groups (WMD -1.61, 95% CI: -9.96 to 6.73, P?=?.70). T2DM patients after LSG experience more significant improvement or remission of diabetes (odds ratio (OR): 0.22, 95% CI: 0.06-0.87, P?=?.03). The 2 groups did not significantly differ regarding improvement or remission of hypertension (OR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.46-1.38, P?=?.42).ConclusionLSG is a more effective procedure than LAGB for morbidly obese patients, contributing to a higher %EWL and greater improvement in T2DM.
| S-EPMC6831371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionBariatric surgery has shown to produce the most predictable and tangible results for weight loss, with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy's being the most popular one of them. However, the occurrence of previously undiagnosed diseases can be encountered during bariatric operations. The work has been reported in line with the SCARE criteria.Case presentationThis is the case of a 54year old morbidly obese female, presenting to our hospital for a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. During her procedure, it was discovered that she has an accessory spleen on the fundus of her stomach. The decision was made to resect it with the specimen of the stomach for histopathalogical examination.ConclusionIncidental findings during routine bariatric surgery are a common occurance, and therefore prompt and effective intra-op management is key to the prognosis of the patient. Accessory spleens, although uncommon, tend to be asymptomatic. However, if undiagnosed, could present with dangerous consequences.
| S-EPMC5447567 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To date, robotic surgery has been widely used worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in gastric cancer patients to determine whether RG can replace laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). METHODS:The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was applied to perform the study. Pubmed, Cochrane Library, WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before May 2020 that compared RG with LG. Next, two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Random effects or fixed effects models were applied according to heterogeneity. RESULTS:A total of 19 studies including 7275 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 4598 patients were in the LG group and 2677 in the RG group. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operative time (WMD = -32.96, 95% CI -42.08 ~ -23.84, P < 0.001), less blood loss (WMD = 28.66, 95% CI 18.59 ~ 38.73, P < 0.001), and shorter time to first flatus (WMD = 0.16 95% CI 0.06 ~ 0.27, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference between RG and LG in terms of the hospital stay (WMD = 0.23, 95% CI -0.53 ~ 0.98, P = 0.560), overall postoperative complication (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 ~ 1.25, P = 0.430), mortality (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 ~ 1.90, P = 0.450), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = -0.96, 95% CI -2.12 ~ 0.20, P = 0.100), proximal resection margin (WMD = -0.10, 95% CI -0.29 ~ 0.09, P = 0.300), and distal resection margin (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI -0.21 ~ 0.52, P = 0.410). No significant differences were found between the two treatments in overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 ~ 1.18, P = 0.640), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 1.21, P = 0.530), and recurrence rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 ~ 1.21, P = 0.500). CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study suggested that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. RG can be performed as effectively and safely as LG. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.
| S-EPMC7688002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and Objectives: Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment with curative intent for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Over the last three decades, surgeons have been increasingly adopting laparoscopic surgery for GC, due to its better short-term outcomes. In particular, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been routinely used for early gastric cancer (EGC) treatment. However, LG suffers from technical limitations and drawbacks, such as a two-dimensional surgical field of view, limited movement of laparoscopic tools, unavoidable physiological tremors and discomfort for operating surgeon. Therefore, robotic surgery has been developed to address such limitations. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines in order to investigate the benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to the LG. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Re-views, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL) and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index) databases were used to search all related literature. Results: The 7 included meta-analyses covered an approximately 20 years-study period (2000-2020). Almost all studies included in the meta-analyses were retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries (China and Korea, in particular). Examined overall population ranged from 3176 to 17,712 patients. If compared to LG, RG showed both operative advantages (operative time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes) and perioperative ones (time to first flatus, time to restart oral intake, length of hospitalization, overall complications, Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ III complications, pancreatic complications), in the absence of clear differences of oncological outcomes. However, costs of robotic approach appear significant. Conclusions: It is impossible to make strong recommendations, due to the statistical weakness of the included studies. Further randomized, possibly multicenter trials are strongly recommended, if we want to have our results confirmed.
| S-EPMC9231199 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction The objective of our study was to compare the 30-day post-operative outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Materials and Methods This randomized controlled study contained patients who underwent bariatric surgery from June 13, 2018 to October 12, 2019. A total of 116 patients having body mass index (BMI) > 35 kg/m2 (morbidly obese), age 18 to 65 years and with failure of conservative treatment were included. Group I patients underwent bariatric surgery using LRYGB technique while group II patients underwent bariatric surgery using the LSG technique. All patients were followed 30 days after surgery to determine early post-operative outcomes. Results The demographic profile, such as age and BMI, was similar between the groups. The mean operating time was 72 ±12 minutes in the LSG group and 156 ± 18 min in the LRYGB group (p-value 0.0001). Major complications were seen in five (8.62%) patients in LSG patients and in four (6.89%) patients in LRYGB group (p-value 0.12). Minor complications were seen in 21 (36.2%) patients in LSG group and in 19 (32.75%) patients in LRYGB group (p-value 0.15). The length of stay in the hospital in LSG group was 6.2±4.2 versus 9.4± 4.6 (p-value 0.0002). Conclusion Both LRYGB and LSG are effective and safe bariatric procedures with a similar incidence of major complications. However, LSG is associated with shorter operative time and hospital stay. Long-term follow-up studies are required to compare the effectiveness of these procedures.
| S-EPMC8057121 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Compared with open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has achieved rapid development and popularities in the past decades. However, lack of comprehensive analysis in long-term oncological outcomes such as recurrence and mortality hinder its full support as a valid procedure. Therefore, there are still debates on whether one of these options is superior. AIM:To evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients METHODS: Two authors independently extracted study data. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary outcomes, mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes, and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. Review Manager 5.3 and STATA software were used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS:Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5204 participants were included in this meta-analysis. There were no differences in the primary outcomes including the number of lymph nodes harvested during operation, severe complications, short-term and long-term recurrence, and mortality. As for secondary outcomes, compared with the OG group, longer operative time was required for patients in the LG group (MD?=?58.80?min, 95% CI?=?[45.80, 71.81], P?<?0.001), but there were less intraoperative blood loss (MD?=?-?54.93?ml, 95% CI?=?[-?81.60, -?28.26], P?<?0.001), less analgesic administration (frequency: MD?=?-?1.73, 95% CI?=?[-?2.21, -?1.24], P?<?0.001; duration: MD?=?-?1.26?days, 95% CI?=?[-?1.40, -?1.12], P?<?0.001), shorter hospital stay (MD?=?-?1.37?days, 95% CI?=?[-?2.05, -?0.70], P?<?0.001), shorter time to first flatus (MD?=?-?0.58?days, 95% CI?=?[-?0.79, -?0.37], P?<?0.001), ambulation (MD?=?-?0.50?days, 95% CI?=?[-?0.90, -?0.09], P?=?0.02) and oral intake (MD?=?-?0.64?days, 95% CI?=?[-?1.24, -?0.03], P?<?0.04), and less total complications (RR?=?0.81, 95% CI?=?[0.71, 0.93], P?=?0.003) in the OG group. There was no difference in blood transfusions (number, quantity) between these two groups. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and the adjustment of Duval's trim and fill methods for publication bias did not change the conclusions. CONCLUSION:LG was comparable to OG in the primary outcomes and had some advantages in secondary outcomes for gastric cancer patients. LG is superior to OG for gastric cancer patients.
| S-EPMC6986035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo expand the current knowledge on the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for gastric cancer in comparison with open total gastrectomy (OTG).BackgroundAdditional studies comparing laparoscopic versus open total gastric resection have been published, and it is necessary to update the meta-analysis of this subject.MethodsOriginal articles compared LTG and OTG for gastric cancer, which published in English from January 1990 to July 2013 were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Knowledge by two reviewers independently. Operative time, blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, proximal resection margin, analgesic medication, first flatus day, first oral intake, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, hospital mortality, 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared using STATA version 10.1.Results17 studies were selected in this analysis, which included a total of 2313 patients (955 in LTG and 1358 in OTG). LTG showed longer operative time, less blood loss, fewer analgesic uses, earlier passage of flatus, quicker resumption of oral intake, earlier hospital discharge, and reduced postoperative morbidity. The number of harvested lymph nodes, proximal resection margin, hospital mortality, 5-year OS and DFS were similar.ConclusionLTG had the benefits of less blood loss, less postoperative pain, quicker bowel function recovery, shorter hospital stay and lower postoperative morbidity, at the price of longer operative time. There were no statistical differences in lymph node dissection, resection margin, hospital mortality, and long-term outcomes, which indicated the similar oncological safety with OTG. A positive trend was indicated towards LTG. So LTG can be performed as an alternative to OTG by the experienced surgeons in high-volume centers. Whereas, due to the relative small sample size of long-term outcomes and lack of randomized control trials, more studies are required.
| S-EPMC3928285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many meta-analyses have confirmed the technical feasibility and favorable short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer patients, but the long-term survival outcome of LG remains controversial compared with open gastrectomy (OG). This study aimed to compare the 5-year overall survival (OS), recurrence, and gastric cancer-related death of LG with OG among gastric cancer patients. PubMed was searched to February 2014. The resectable gastric cancer patients who underwent curative LG or OG were eligible. The studies that compared 5-year OS, recurrence, or gastric cancer-related death in the LG and OG groups were included. A meta-analysis, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and stage-specific analysis were performed to estimate the survival outcome between the two groups and identify the potential confounders. Quality assessment was based on a tailored comparability scoring system. Twenty-three studies with 7336 patients were included. The score of comparability between two groups and the extent of lymphadenectomy were two independent confounders. Based on the well-balanced studies, the 5-year OS (OR?=?1.07, 95% CI 0.90-1.28, P?=?0.45), recurrence (OR?=?0.83, 95% CI 0.68-1.02, P?=?0.08), and gastric cancer-related death (OR?=?0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.13, P?=?0.28) rates were comparable in LG and OG. Several subsets such as the publication year, study region, sample size, gastrectomy pattern, extent of lymphadenectomy, number of nodes harvested, and proportion of T1-2 or N0-1 did not influence the estimates, if they were well balanced. Particularly, the stage-specific estimates obtained comparable results between the two groups. Randomized controlled trials comparing LG with OG remain sparse to assess their long-term survival outcomes. The major contributions of this systematic review compared with other meta-analyses are a comprehensive collection of available long-term survival outcomes within a much larger number of observations and a more precise consideration of confounders. Current knowledge indicates that the long-term survival outcome of laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery is comparable to that of open surgery among early or advanced stage gastric cancer patients, and LG is acceptable with regard to oncologic safety.
| S-EPMC4602964 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionLaparoscopic surgery has been adopted in some parts of the world as an innovative approach to the resection of gastric cancers. However, in the modern era of surgical oncology, to overcome intrinsic limitations of the traditional laparoscopy, the robotic approach is advocated as able to facilitate the lymph node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer patients. Previous meta-analyses highlighted a lower complication rate as well as bleeding in the robotic approach group when compared with the laparoscopic one. This potential benefit must be balanced against an increased time of intervention. The aim of this umbrella review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature for surgeons and policymakers in order to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared with the laparoscopic approach for gastric cancer.Methods and analysisWe will perform a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all articles published up to May 2019 and reference list of relevant publications for systematic review and meta-analyses comparing the outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Studies will be selected by two independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria and the quality will be assessed according to AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) checklist. All information will be collected using piloted and standardised data-extraction forms in DistillerSR developed following the Joanna Briggs Institute's recommended extraction items.Ethics and disseminationThis umbrella review will inform clinical and policy decisions regarding the benefits and harms of RG for treating gastric cancer. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and the popular press. Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected.Prospero registration numberCRD42019139906.
| S-EPMC7050371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) modifies the upper gastrointestinal tract motility. Controversial data currently exist. The aim of the study was to evaluate esophageal motility before and after LSG. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Morbid obese patients scheduled for LSG underwent reflux symptoms evaluation and manometry preoperatively and postoperatively. The preoperative and postoperative results were compared and analyzed. RESULTS:Eighteen patients were enrolled. Heartburn and regurgitation improved in 38.9% and 11.1% of the patients, but deteriorated in 11.1% and 27.8% of the patients, respectively. Lower esophageal sphincter (LES) total length decreased postoperatively (p=0.002). Resting and residual pressures tended to decrease postoperatively (mean difference [95% confidence interval]: -4 [-8.3/0.2] mmHg, p=0.060; -1.4 [-3/0.1] mmHg, p=0.071, respectively). Amplitude pressure decreased from 95.7±37.3 to 69.8±26.3 mmHg at the upper border of LES (p=0.014), and tended to decrease at the distal esophagus from 128.5±30.1 to 112.1±35.4 mmHg (p=0.06) and mid-esophagus from 72.7±34.5 to 49.4±16.7 mmHg (p=0.006). Peristaltic normal swallow percentage increased from 47.2±36.8 to 82.8±28% (p=0.003). Postoperative regurgitation was strongly negatively correlated with LES total length (Spearman's r=-0.670). When groups were compared according to heartburn status, statistical significance was observed between the groups of improvement and deterioration regarding postoperative residual pressure and postoperative relaxation (p<0.002, p<0.002, respectively). With regard to regurgitation status, there was statistically significant difference between groups regarding preoperative amplitude pressure at the upper border of LES (p<0.056). CONCLUSION:Patients developed decreased LES length and weakened LES pressure after LSG. Esophageal body peristalsis was also affected in terms of decreased amplitude pressure, especially at the upper border of LES. Nevertheless, body peristalsis was normalized postoperatively. LSG might not deteriorate heartburn. Regurgitation might increase following LSG due to shortening of LES length, particularly in patients with range of preoperative amplitude pressure at the upper border of LES of 38.9-92.6 mmHg.
| S-EPMC5529110 | biostudies-literature