Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29270908›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2018

Stapleless Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Reasoning and Technical Insights.

Matteo Catanzano, Lisa Grundy, Mohamed Bekheit

Open access · hybridAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Matteo CatanzanoDepartment of Surgery, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill Health Campus, Aberdeen, AB252ZN, UK.
Lisa GrundyDepartment of Surgery, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill Health Campus, Aberdeen, AB252ZN, UK.
Mohamed BekheitDepartment of Surgery, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill Health Campus, Aberdeen, AB252ZN, UK. dr_mohamedbekheit@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2126-4174
Aberdeen Royal Infirmary · GBInserm · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) with staple line reinforcement (SLR) is a popular and safe treatment option for morbid obesity. We have developed, devised, and described our own method of stapleless laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, which in our limited study appeared safe, efficacious, and potentially cost-effective.

methodsWe analyzed the outcome of our modified LSG in a case series of three middle-aged women (median age 42 years old). Our main modification was sutured closure of the stomach rather than the commonly utilized technique of stapled closure. Our primary measure of success was the occurrence of post-operative leak. Secondary measures were (a) length of operation, (b) duration of inpatient stay, and (c) percentage of weight loss at 6 and 12 months post operation.

resultsMedian operative time = 132 min (120-195 min), and median inpatient stays were 2 days. No post-operative leaks were recorded. The median excess weight loss at 6 months was 39% of initial weight loss and 57.7% at 12 months.

conclusionsStapleless LSG has the potential to be an affordable alternative to the traditional LSG. High-powered studies and a formal cost analysis are required.

Indexed as

Suture TechniquesAdultAnastomotic LeakFemaleGastrectomyHumansLaparoscopyMiddle AgedObesity, MorbidOperative TimePostoperative PeriodStomachSurgical StaplingSuturesTreatment OutcomeWeight LossBariatricLaparoscopicObesitySleeveStaplelessStaplerStaplerless

Identifiers

PMID29270908
PMCPMC5803282
OpenAlexW2729145038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.