Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28378080›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017

Cost analysis of leak after sleeve gastrectomy.

Marius Nedelcu, Thierry Manos, Michel Gagner, Imane Eddbali, Ahmed Ahmed, Patrick Noel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

6 authors.

Marius NedelcuCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Montpellier, University Hospital of Montpellier, Montpellier, France. nedelcu.marius@gmail.com.
Thierry ManosClinique Bouchard, Marseille, France.
Michel GagnerHôpital Du Sacre Cœur, Montreal, Canada.
Imane EddbaliThe American Surgecenter, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Ahmed AhmedSt Mary's Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Patrick NoelThe American Surgecenter, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLeaks after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are serious complications of this procedure. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the costs of leaks after LSG.

settingPrivate hospital, France.

methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on a prospective cohort of 2012 cases of LSG between September 2005 and December 2014. Data were collected on all diagnostic and therapeutic measures necessary to manage leaks, ward, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. Additional outpatient care was also analyzed.

resultsTwenty cases (0.99%) of gastric leak were recorded. Fifteen patients had available data for cost analysis. Of these, 13 patients were women (86.7%) with a mean age of 41.4 years (range 22-61) and mean BMI of 43.2 kg/m

conclusionsLeaks after LSG are an expensive complication. It is therefore important to take all necessary measures to reduce their incidence. Our data should be considered when analyzing the cost effectiveness of staple line reinforcement usage.

Indexed as

AdultAnastomotic LeakCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleFranceGastrectomyHealth Care CostsHumansIncidenceLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedObesity, MorbidPatient ReadmissionProspective StudiesCostLeakReinforcementSleeve

Identifiers

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.