Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30675687›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2019

Comparing Techniques for Mesenteric Defects Closure in Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass Surgery-a Register-Based Cohort Study.

Erik Stenberg, Johan Ottosson, Eva Szabo, Ingmar Näslund

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Internal Hernia After Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass Without Preventive Closure of Mesenteric Defects: a Single Institution's Experience.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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.

Erik StenbergDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, SE-70185, Örebro, Sweden. erik.stenberg@regionorebrolan.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9189-0093
Johan OttossonDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, SE-70185, Örebro, Sweden.
Eva SzaboDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, SE-70185, Örebro, Sweden.
Ingmar NäslundDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, SE-70185, Örebro, Sweden.
Örebro University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRoutine closure of mesenteric defects is generally considered standard part of laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery today. Controversy still exists regarding the optimal method for mesenteric defects closure. The objective was to compare different methods for mesenteric defects handling in laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery.

methodsPrimary laparoscopic gastric bypass procedures from 2010 until 2015 reported to the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry (SOReg), where the mesenteric defects closure method was identifiable, were included. Main outcome measures were serious postoperative complication within 30 days after surgery, and reoperation for small bowel obstruction within 5 years after surgery. Quality-of-life before and after surgery, duration of surgery, and risk factors for complication were also analyzed. Information on operation for small bowel obstruction was based on data from the SOReg, the Swedish National Patient Register and reviews of hospital charts.

resultsIn all, 34,707 patients were included. Serious postoperative complication occurred in 174 (2.9%) patients with sutures, in 592 (3.1%, adjusted p = 0.079) with clips, and 278 (3.1%; adjusted p = 0.658) in the non-closure group. Reoperation for small bowel obstruction within 5 years after surgery was lower with sutures (cumulative incidence 6.9%) and clips (cumulative incidence 7.3%; adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.32, p = 0.026), compared to non-closure (cumulative incidence 11.2%; adjusted HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.44-1.84, p < 0.0001).

conclusionClosure of the mesenteric defects using either non-absorbable metal clips or non-absorbable running sutures is a safe and effective measure to reduce the risk for small bowel obstruction after laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery. Sutures appear slightly more effective and should remain gold standard for mesenteric defects closure.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCohort StudiesFemaleGastric BypassHumansIncidenceIntestinal ObstructionIntestine, SmallLaparoscopyMaleMesenteryMiddle AgedObesity, MorbidPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeBariatric surgeryGastric bypassInternal herniaPostoperative complicationPreventionSmall bowel obstruction

Identifiers

PMID30675687
OpenAlexW2914614369

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.