ArticleObesity surgery2019
Comparison of a Novel, Trocar-Free Internal Liver Retractor to Standard Liver Retraction in Bariatric Surgery.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Elastic Intracorporeal Retraction in Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: Performance, Safety, and Multi-Organ Applications.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Cardiac tamponade after robotic hiatal hernia repair from liver sling stitch: Case report of a rare complication and literature review.International journal of surgery case reports · 2022Article
- Liver retraction using an L-shaped retractor during sleeve gastrectomy.Surgery today · 2022Article
- Comparison of the Pretzelflex Retractor and Nathanson Retractor in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Surgery.Obesity surgery · 2021Article
- K-Wire Retractor, a Trocar-Free Liver Retraction Technique in Bariatric Surgery.Obesity surgery · 2021Article
- The advantages and disadvantages of sleeve gastrectomy; clinical laboratory to bedside review.Heliyon · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdequate liver retraction is an essential step in bariatric surgery, with technical challenges due to an enlarged, fatty liver. Traditional methods utilize externally fixed, rigid retractors with inherent drawbacks including an extra incision, pain, scarring, and liver injury. Advancement of laparoscopic techniques for liver retraction methods has focused on simplicity, reproducibility, safety, and effective use to avoid patient comorbidity. Our study is a retrospective evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a totally internal, atraumatic bulldog liver retractor versus standard retraction in a large series of patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery.
methodsA retrospective chart review was performed on all patients undergoing bariatric surgery from April 2010 to December 2017. Standard retraction was used in 108 subjects and a bulldog retractor system attached to the pars flaccida, and anterior abdominal wall was used in 483 subjects. Any operations with additional procedures, re-do operations, or missing data were excluded.
resultsFive hundred fifty-one procedures were included between 2010 and 2017. In unadjusted analysis, no significant differences were found in AST/ALT elevation, need for additional retraction, length of stay (LOS), or operative times between the bulldog and standard retraction. Adjustment for demographics and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy in a multivariable logistic regression model, the standard retractor showed higher odds of AST/ALT elevation post-op and higher odds of needing additional retraction compared with those of the bulldog retractor. DISCUSSIONS/
conclusionThe bulldog retractor system can be used safely and effectively to expose the gastroesophageal junction in morbidly obese patients with advancements on the customary approach.
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.