Advertisement

Reduced-Port Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbidly Obese Japanese Patients: a Retrospective Case-Matched Study

  • Manabu Amiki
  • Yosuke SekiEmail author
  • Kazunori Kasama
  • Srinivasulu Pachimatla
  • Michiko Kitagawa
  • Akiko Umezawa
  • Yoshimochi Kurokawa
Original Contributions

Abstract

Background

Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery remains controversial due to technical challenges that can lead to suboptimal outcomes, and data pertaining to operative and clinical outcomes of reduced-port sleeve gastrectomy (RPSG) vs. conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG) are lacking.

Aims

This retrospective case-matched study aimed to compare midterm (2-year) outcomes of RPSG and of CLSG.

Methods

Patients included in the study had undergone laparoscopic bariatric surgery at our center between 2010 and 2017. Thirty-one consecutive female patients who underwent RPSG were compared to a sex-, age-, body mass index–matched group of 31 patients who underwent CLSG. Outcomes were evaluated and compared between groups.

Results

Estimated blood loss volume, incidences of intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of postoperative hospital stay did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Operation time was significantly greater in the RPSG group than in the CLSG group (148.7 ± 22.6 vs. 120.2 ± 25.9 min, respectively; p < 0.001). Excess weight loss at 1 year was 105.9% and 109.7%, respectively (p = 0.94) and at 2 years was 101.1% and 105.3%, respectively (p = 0.64). One RPSG patient required placement of additional trocars because of bleeding from short gastric vessels, but conversion to open surgery was not required.

Conclusions

RPSG is feasible in carefully selected bariatric patients and results in midterm outcomes comparable to those observed after CLSG. Good cosmesis is a potential benefit of RPSG.

Keywords

Bariatric surgery Sleeve gastrectomy Reduced-port surgery 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Prof. Tina Tajima for her assistance in presenting our findings in English.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in our study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or Japanese national research committees and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Consent to use their anonymized data for research purposes has been obtained from all included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Sjöström L, Narbro K, Sjöström CD, et al. Effects of bariatric surgery on mortality in Swedish obese subjects. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:741–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, et al. Bariatric surgery and endoluminal procedures: IFSO worldwide survey 2014. Obes Surg. 2017;27:2279–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ohta M, Seki Y, Wong SK, Wang C, Huang CK, Aly A, et al. Bariatric/metabolic surgery in the Asia-Pacific region: APMBSS 2018 survey. Obes Surg. Springer; 2018;1–8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee WS, Choi ST, Lee JN, et al. Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study. Ann Surg. 2013;257:214–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Curcillo PG, Wu AS, Podolsky ER, et al. Single-port-access (SPA TM) cholecystectomy: a multi-institutional report of the first 297 cases. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1854–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Champagne BJ, Papaconstantinou HT, Parmar SS, et al. Single-incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a multicenter, case-controlled comparison. Ann Surg LWW. 2012;255:66–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Cadeddu JA. Single-incision, umbilical laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a comparison of perioperative outcomes and short-term measures of convalescence. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Targarona EM, Balague C, Martinez C, et al. Single-port access: a feasible alternative to conventional laparoscopic splenectomy. Surg Innov. 2009;16:348–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamzaoglu I, Karahasanoglu T, Aytac E, et al. Transumbilical totally laparoscopic single-port Nissen fundoplication: a new method of liver retraction: the Istanbul technique. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:1035–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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;6:658–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lakdawala M, Agarwal A, Dhar S, et al. Single-incision sleeve gastrectomy versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. A 2-year comparative analysis of 600 patients. Obes Surg. 2015;25:607–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Delgado S, Ibarzabal A, Adelsdorfer C, et al. Transumbilical single-port sleeve gastrectomy: initial experience and comparative study. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:1247–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sucher R, Resch T, Mohr E, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus multiport laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: analysis of 80 cases in a single center. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2014;24:83–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gomberawalla A, Salamat A, Lutfi R. Outcome analysis of single incision vs traditional multiport sleeve gastrectomy: a matched cohort study. Obes Surg Springer;. 2014;24:1870–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Porta A, Aiolfi A, Musolino C, et al. Prospective comparison and quality of life for single-incision and conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in a series of morbidly obese patients. Obes Surg. Springer;. 2017;27:681–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hosseini SV, Hosseini SA, Al-Hurry AMAH, et al. Comparison of early results and complications between multi-and single-port sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized clinical study. Iran J Med Sci. 2017;42:251.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Himpens J, Dobbeleir J, Peeters G. Long-term results of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for obesity. Ann Surg. 2010;252:319–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guidelines for Clinical Application of Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery. Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). http://www.sages.org/publications/guidelines/guidelines-for-clinical-application-of-laparoscopic-bariatric-surgery/. Accessed 26 Jan 2019.
  19. 19.
    Zachariah SK, Tai CM, Chang PC, et al. The “T-suspension tape” for liver and gallbladder retraction in bariatric surgery: feasibility, technique, and initial experience. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23:311–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mittermair R, Pratschke J, Sucher R. Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Am Surg. 2013;79:393–7.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fernández JI, Ovalle C, Farias C, et al. Transumbilical laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with hand-sewn gastrojejunal anastomosis. Obes Surg. 2013;23:140–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Palanivelu P, Patil KP, Parthasarathi R, et al. Review of various liver retraction techniques in single incision laparoscopic surgery for the exposure of hiatus. J Minim Access Surg. 2015;11:198–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shi X, Karmali S, Sharma AM, et al. A review of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity. Obes Surg. 2010;20:1171–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gentileschi P, Camperchioli I, Benavoli D, et al. Laparoscopic single-port sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity: preliminary series. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2010;6:665–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Uslu HY, Erkek AB, Cakmak A, et al. Trocar site hernia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2007;17:600–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marks JM, Phillips MS, Tacchino R, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport laparoscopic. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:1037–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Julliard O, Hauters P, Possoz J, et al. Incisional hernia after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: incidence and predictive factors. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:4539–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Buckley 3rd FP, Vassaur HE, Jupiter DC, et al. Influencing factors for port-site hernias after single-incision laparoscopy. Hernia. 2016;20:729–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Soricelli E, Iossa A, Casella G, et al. Sleeve gastrectomy and crural repair in obese patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and/or hiatal hernia. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;9:356–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Weight loss and Metabolic Surgery CenterYotsuya Medical CubeTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Ramdev Rao Memorial General HospitalSivananda Rehabilitation HomeKukutpally HyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations