ArticleObesity surgery2025
Comparison of Complications and Mortality in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy With and Without Omentopexy.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmong bariatric surgeries, laparoscopic sleeve gastrostomy (LSG) has gained good global acceptance, but this surgery, like any other invasive procedure, has side effects. Various techniques have been tested to reduce these complications, which are used under the title of stapler line reinforcement (SLR). The purpose of this research is to compare the bleeding, leakage, mortality, food intolerance, re-hospitalization, and post-operative invasive therapeutic interventions in LSG surgery in two groups with and without omentopexy method.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, the patients who underwent LSG were included in the study and were compared in two groups with omentopexy and without omentopexy in terms of complications. The patients were followed up during the first year after the operation, and the patients were examined in terms of complications, including bleeding, leakage, mortality, food intolerance, re-hospitalization, and post-operative invasive therapeutic interventions.
resultsIn terms of bleeding (p = 0.263) and the frequency of leak cases (p = 0.286), no significant difference was observed between the two groups, but the treatment measures performed to control the leak had a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.013). The need for re-admission was significantly higher (p = 0.017) in the group without omentopexy, and the need for re-surgery was also significantly different (p = 0.001) between the two groups. The frequency of food intolerance was significantly higher (p = 0.001) in the group without omentopexy, and the frequency of mortality was no statistically significant difference with the group with omentopexy (p = 0.304).
conclusionsThe results of this study showed that the need for more aggressive interventions (laparotomy) to control bleeding and leak is less in the group with omentopexy, also the chance of re-hospitalization and re-surgery after omentopexy is reduced, and food intolerance disorder is less in this group. Therefore, the findings of this study show that LSG with omentopexy has fewer side effects than without omentopexy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39885062What 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.