Advertisement

Obesity Surgery

, Volume 27, Issue 12, pp 3320–3326 | Cite as

Bikini Line Sleeve Gastrectomy: Initial Report

  • Tamer N. AbdelbakiEmail author
How I Do It

Abstract

Background/introduction

Several reports have discussed the potential for reducing port access in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG); however, each approach had its innate setbacks. Aiming at improving the aesthetic outcome, we report a novel approach to the LSG where we place the trocars at the bikini line in what we described as bikini line sleeve gastrectomy (BLSG).

Methods

The present work is a prospective, pilot study on the use of BLSG in patients, during the period between April and October 2016. Exclusion criteria included the following: large hiatal hernia, upper abdominal surgery, and xiphi-umbilical, xiphi-symphysis pubis, and xiphi-anterior superior iliac spine distances of > 25,36 and 33 cm, respectively. Four trocars were used: one at the umbilicus and three at the bikini line. All laparoscopic graspers were bariatric length instruments (43 cm). However, camera telescope, endoscopic stapler, and bipolar dissectors were standard length.

Results

Twenty eight patients underwent BLSG. The mean age was 34.6 ± 3.7 years with a mean BMI of 42.46 kg/m2 ± 3. There were no major intra- or postoperative complications and no conversion to conventional port site placement. Patient’s scar satisfaction was favorable. The mean postoperative BMI and weight at 6 m were 28.5 ± 1 kg/m2 and 79.8 kg ± 2, respectively. The mean percentage excess weight loss at 3, 6, and 12 months were 39.5 ± 4.6, 64.5 ± 5, and 69.8 ± 6%, respectively.

Conclusion

BLSG was found to be potentially safe, feasible, and effective with a favorable aesthetic outcome; it could possibly be offered to a select group of patients that are conscious about their scar appearance.

Keywords

Sleeve gastrectomy Minimal scar Bikini line Less invasive No scar 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Statement of Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

ESM 1

(MP4 88060 kb).

References

  1. 1.
    Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E, et al. Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;292(14):1724–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carter PL. The evolution of bariatric surgery. Am J Surg. 2015;209(5):779–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stefanopoulos A, Economopoulos KP, Kalles V. Single incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a review. Obes Surg. 2015;25(8):1502–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dunford G, Philip S, Kole K. Three-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a novel technical modification. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26(6):174–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chekan E, Moore M, Hunter TD, et al. Costs and clinical outcomes of conventional single port and micro-laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS. 2013;17(1):30–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Henriksen NA, Al-Tayar H, Rosenberg J, et al. Cost assessment of instruments for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS. 2012;16(3):353–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alptekin H, Yilmaz H, Acar F, et al. Incisional hernia rate may increase after single-port cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(8):731–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MW. The patient scar assessment questionnaire: a reliable and valid patient-reported outcomes measure for linear scars. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:1481–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roa PE, Kaidar-Person O, Pinto D, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as treatment for morbid obesity: technique and short-term outcome. Obes Surg. 2006;16(10):1323–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deitel M, Crosby RD, Gagner M. The First International Consensus Summit for Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG), New York City, October 25-27, 2007. Obes Surg. 2008;18(5):487–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hanna GB, Cuschieri A. Influence of the optical axis-to-target view angle on endoscopic task performance. Surg Endosc. 1999;13(4):371–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cottam D, Qureshi FD, Mattar SG, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as an initial weight-loss procedure for high-risk patients with morbid obesity. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:859–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Regan JP, Inabnet WB, Gagner M, et al. Early experience with two-stage laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass as an alternative in the super-super obese patient. Obes Surg. 2003;13:861–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sammour T, Hill AG, Singh P, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a single-stage bariatric procedure. Obes Surg. 2010;20:271–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boza C, Salinas J, Salgado N, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a stand-alone procedure for morbid obesity: report of 1,000 cases and 3-year follow-up. Obes Surg. 2012;22:866–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Inaki N, Tsuji T, Doden K, et al. Reduced port laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;1:38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee SC, Choi BJ, Kim SJ. Two-port cholecystectomy maintains safety and feasibility in benign gallbladder diseases: a comparative study. Int J Surg. 2014;12(9):1014–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gaillard M, Tranchart H, Lainas P, et al. Single-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a routine procedure in1000 patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12:1270–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saber AA, El-Ghazaly TH, Dewoolkar AV, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: technical considerations and strategic modifications. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2010;6(6):658–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saber AA, El-Ghazaly TH, Elian A, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic placement of adjustable gastric band versus conventional multiport laparoscopic gastric banding: a comparative study. Am Surg. 2010;76(12):1328–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ruiz-Tovar J, Muñoz JL, Gonzalez J, et al. Postoperative pain after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: comparison of three analgesic schemes (isolated intravenous analgesia, epidural analgesia associated with intravenous analgesia and port-sites infiltration with bupivacaine associated with intravenous analgesia). Surg Endosc. 2017;31(1):231–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Siddiqui NA, Azami R, Murtaza G, et al. Postoperative port-site pain after gall bladder retrieval from epigastric vs. umbilical port in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Surg. 2012;10(4):213–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keir A, Rhodes L, Kayal A, et al. Does a transversus abdominis plane (TAP) local anaesthetic block improve pain control in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A best evidence topic. Int J Surg. 2013;11(9):792–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Manning S, Pucci A. Early postoperative weight loss predicts maximal weight loss after sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(6):1484–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clinical Issues Committee ASMBS. Updated position statement on sleeve gastrectomy as a bariatric procedure. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012;8:e21–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deitel M, Gagner M, Erickson AL, et al. Third International Summit: current status of sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2011;7:749–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Rutte PW, Smulders JF, de Zoete JP, et al. Outcome of sleeve gastrectomy as a primary bariatric procedure. Br J Surg. 2014;101(6):661–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chang SH, Stoll CR, Song J, et al. The effectiveness and risks of bariatric surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, 2003-2012. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(3):275–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.General Surgery DepartmentAlexandria University Faculty of MedicineAlexandriaEgypt

Personalised recommendations