ArticleObesity surgery2018
Gastric Plication and Sleeve Gastrectomy in an Experimental Model of Obesity: New Insights into Weight Loss, Intake and Metabolic Results.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimLaparoscopic gastric plication (LGP) is a bariatric surgical technique based on the anatomical principles of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), but its effects on the metabolic profile are still uncertain. The aim of our study is to compare the changes in weight, metabolic parameters and gastric histology following intervention by gastric plication (GP) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in an experimental model of obesity.
methodsTo conduct the study, 32 8-week-old male Sprague-Dawley rats (Charles River®) were fattened by means of a cafeteria diet and randomly assigned to the following experimental groups: group 1: GP (n = 12); group 2: SG (n = 12) and group 3: sham (n = 8).
resultsUnlike the SG group, the GP group attained the weight of the sham group at the end of the experiment (week 16). The GP group continued to eat more cafeteria diet than the SG group. In addition, the SG group achieved better glycaemic control than the GP group. Significantly higher plasma ghrelin levels were observed at week 16 in the GP group than in the SG group (2.29 ± 0.5 vs 1.07 ± 0.4, p < 0.05), which also occurred for the glucagon plasmatic levels (62.71 ± 36.2 vs 24.63 ± 9.3, p < 0.05).
conclusionsGP is not as effective as SG and cannot be considered a metabolic surgery due to observed hormonal variations. The animals subjected to a GP continued to have a high appetite for the cafeteria diet unlike the animals submitted to an SG. Hormonal mechanisms possibly related to glucagon and ghrelin may be involved in this metabolic response.
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.