ArticleObesity surgery2015
Analysis of Morbidity Data of 308 Cases of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy--the Soroka Experience.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Staple Line Reinforcement in Laparoscopic SleeveGastrectomy: Experience in 1023 Consecutive Cases.Obesity surgery · 2017Article
- Safety and Outcome of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Following Removal of Adjustable Gastric Banding: Lessons from 109 Patients in a Single Center and Review of the Literature.Obesity surgery · 2017Review
- Medical Malpractice in Bariatric Surgery: a Review of 140 Medicolegal Claims.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) became a prevalent bariatric procedure in Israel, while laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was losing ground, due to high failure rates (40 % at 10 years). Many patients after LAGB failure choose LSG as a further bariatric surgery (secondary LSG). However, LAGB often impairs upper stomach anatomy and physiology, which may contribute to complications increased risk after secondary LSG, in comparison to surgery-naive obese patients choosing LSG (primary LSG).
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on a prospective database, looking at morbidly obese patients for LSG surgery. All procedures were done by a single surgeon at the Soroka Medical Center between January 2008 and March 2013. Data were collected from hospitalization charts on demographics, biometric and bariatric status, medical and bariatric surgical history, post-LSG morbidity, and mortality.
resultsThree hundred eight patients underwent LSG during the study period, 181 (58.8 %) had a primary LSG while 127 (41.2 %) had a secondary LSG. No mortality occurred in both groups. Odds ratio for major complication (leak, stenosis) was 3.12 [CI 0.90-10.75] among the secondary LSG group, compared to the primary LSG (p = 0.071). The risk for major complication was doubled (OR = 2, 95 % CI [1.36-3.06]) for each one of previous bariatric procedure underwent (p = 0.001). Significant differences were found between the two groups regarding number and length of readmissions and number of imaging tests (p value = 0.027, 0.022, and 0.049, respectively).
conclusionsPrimary LSG is a safe and efficient bariatric procedure. After failed LAGB, secondary LSG should be carefully considered, because of a potentially higher risk of complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.