ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2019
Outcomes of primary sleeve gastrectomy versus conversion sleeve gastrectomy in morbidly obese patients.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perioperative Morbidity and Mortality of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) in a Single-Surgeon Experience on 892 Patients Over 11 Years.World journal of surgery · 2023Article
- One-stage versus two-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass as redo surgery of failed adjustable gastric banding.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023Article
- Outcomes in revisional bariatric surgery: a high-volume single institution experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur aim for this study was to evaluate early and late complications and outcomes of primary sleeve gastrectomy (PSG) versus conversion sleeve gastrectomy (CSG).
methodsFrom February 2013 to December 2016, a total of 180 patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy (150 PSG and 30 CSG). All patients received a metal clipping at the end of the stapling line and a continuous seromuscular suture at the resection margin, for reinforcement.
resultsThere were no differences in the percentages among males and females or age between the 2 groups, but the body mass index (BMI) of the PSG group was higher at 36.8 ± 4.7 than that of the CSG group (32.4 ± 5.7, P < 0.001). Three early postoperative complications were noted in the PSG group; 1 patient underwent repeat laparoscopic exploration due to pancreatic injury, and 2 other patients developed pulmonary atelectasis. On the contrary, 2 early minor complications were noted in the CSG group. Thirty-eight patients (25.3%) in the PSG group developed 43 late, minor complications, while 9 patients (30.0%) developed 11 late minor and 1 major complication in the CSG group. However, there was no difference in complication rate between PSG and CSG. Percentage excess BMI loss at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery was comparable between the groups.
conclusionPSG and CSG were comparable in terms of postoperative complications and loss of weight. Therefore, CSG could be used for failed primary restrictive bariatric surgery. However, the durability of these outcomes remains unknown.
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.