Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26194265›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2016

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with 27 versus 39 Fr bougie calibration: a randomized controlled trial.

Patricio Cal, Luciano Deluca, Tomás Jakob, Ezequiel Fernández

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Patricio CalCentro de Rehabilitación Quirúrgica de la Obesidad, Riobamba 429, 8º 806, CP1025, Buenos Aires, Argentina. cal.churruca@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5622-1799
Luciano DelucaCentro de Rehabilitación Quirúrgica de la Obesidad, Riobamba 429, 8º 806, CP1025, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Tomás JakobCentro de Rehabilitación Quirúrgica de la Obesidad, Riobamba 429, 8º 806, CP1025, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Ezequiel FernándezCentro de Rehabilitación Quirúrgica de la Obesidad, Riobamba 429, 8º 806, CP1025, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Psicofísica · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become a widely used primary bariatric surgery. As this is a restrictive procedure, calibrating bougie size is assumed to impact on both morbidity and weight loss. However, no prospective studies have confirmed this hypothesis. The objective of this trial was to compare LSG outcomes using different calibrating bougie diameters. MATERIALS AND

methodsA randomized controlled trial: 126 patients undergoing LSG were randomized to either a 27-Fr (group A) or a 39-Fr (group B) calibrating bougie. Inclusion criteria were BMI 40-50 kg/m(2), aged 20-70 and absence of prior gastric surgery. All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. Sample size was calculated to detect a six-point difference in percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at 1 year after surgery, considering an α error = 0.05 and a β error = 0.2. The volume of resected stomach, morbidity and weight loss at 6 months and at 1 year after surgery were analyzed.

resultsGroups (group A n = 62, group B n = 64) were similar in BMI (44.3 vs. 43.5), aged (41.9 vs. 42.2) and female percentage (87.1 vs. 84.3 %). A 1-year follow-up was achieved in 90.1 and 87.1 %, respectively. Two major complications occurred, one leak in each group (1.6 %). The volume of resected stomach was similar (426 vs. 402 ml, P = 0.71), as well as 6 months %EWL (66.3 vs. 66.6 %; P = 0.91) and 1 year %EWL (75.6 vs. 71.3 %, P = 0.21). A 1-year %EWL higher than 50 was achieved in 96.5 % of patients in group A versus 85.2 % in group B (P = 0.11).

conclusionsThe use of different bougie diameters had no impact on the volume of resected stomach, morbidity or short-term weight loss after LSG, although a trend was seen toward better weight loss with the smaller bougie. A longer-lasting follow-up will be necessary to further assess differences.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBody Mass IndexCalibrationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGastrectomyHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedObesity, MorbidProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeWeight LossBougieCalibrationRCTSizeSleeve gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID26194265
OpenAlexW2162212073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.