Reduced-Port Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbidly Obese Japanese Patients: a Retrospective Case-Matched Study
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.
This retrospective case-matched study aimed to compare midterm (2-year) outcomes of RPSG and of CLSG.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsBariatric surgery Sleeve gastrectomy Reduced-port surgery
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.
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.
Consent to use their anonymized data for research purposes has been obtained from all included in the study.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 20.Mittermair R, Pratschke J, Sucher R. Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Am Surg. 2013;79:393–7.Google Scholar
- 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