ArticleBMC gastroenterology2023
Efficacy of endoscopic gastrojejunal bypass in obese Yucatan pigs: a comparative animal study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2023. 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, 2 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNatural orifice transluminal endoscopy surgery (NOTES) gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJA) with duodenal exclusion (DE) could be used as a less invasive alternative to surgical gastric bypass. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of both methods for bariatric purpose.
methodsThis was a prospective, experimental and comparative study on 27 obese living pigs, comparing 4 groups: GJA alone (group 1, G1), GJA + DE (group 2, G2), surgical gastric bypass (group 3, G3), control group (group 4, G4). GJA was endoscopically performed, using NOTES technic and LAMS, while DE was performed surgically for limb length selection. Animals were followed for 3 months. Primary outcome included technical success and weight change, while secondary endpoints included the rate of perioperative mortality and morbidity, histological anastomosis analysis and biological analysis.
resultsTechnical success was 100% in each intervention group. No death related to endoscopic procedures occurred in the endoscopic groups, while early mortality (< 1 month) was 57,1% in the surgical group, all due to anastomotic dehiscence. At 3 months, compared to baseline, mean weight change was + 3,1% in G1 (p = 0,46); -14,9% in G2 (p = 0,17); +5,6% in G3 (p = 0,38) and + 25% in G4 (p = 0,029). Histopathological analysis of endoscopic GJA showed complete fusion of different layers without leak or abscess.
conclusionsEndoscopic GJA with DE provides the efficacy of bypass on weight control in an animal model. Next steps consist of the development of devices to perform exclusively endoscopically limb length selection and DE.
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.