ArticleObesity surgery2026
Comparative Analysis of Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Cosmetic Outcomes of Modified Bikini Line Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (MBLSG) Versus Standard Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG): A Large-Series Study.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2026. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) is the most frequently performed technique among bariatric surgical procedures; however, it may lead to aesthetic concerns due to visible port scars. The primary objective of this study is to compare the safety, efficacy, and cosmetic outcomes of the Modified Bikini Line Sleeve Gastrectomy (MBLSG) technique-which we have defined to address this drawback-with conventional LSG.
methodsPatients who underwent MBLSG and conventional LSG at the participating centers between 2020 and 2025 were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 1834 patients (Conventional LSG: 928; MBLSG: 906) were included in the study. The two groups were compared based on demographic data (age, sex, BMI, ASA score), operative time, complication rates (according to the Clavien-Dindo classification), postoperative pain scores (VAS), and weight loss percentages (%TWL, %EWL) at the 3rd, 6th, and 12th months.
resultsSignificant differences were observed between the groups in terms of age (35.8 ± 6.7 vs. 34.5 ± 6.8 years; p < 0.001) and sex distribution (p < 0.001, with a significantly higher proportion of female patients in the MBLSG group). However, no significant differences were found regarding mean body mass index (BMI), body weight, or ASA score distribution (p > 0.05). The operative time in the MBLSG group (26.9 ± 3.4 min) was longer than that in the conventional group (23.1 ± 3.2 min; p < 0.001). Regarding complication rates, the Grade I complication rate was significantly higher in the MBLSG group (27.0%) compared to the conventional group (25.1%), as was the Grade II complication rate (15.1% in MBLSG vs. 12.0% in conventional; p = 0.049). Analysis of weight loss percentages (at 3, 6, and 12 months) revealed no statistically significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The groups also exhibited similar results for early postoperative parameters such as pain levels (VAS) and time to mobilization. Conversely, when postoperative cosmetic scores were evaluated, the level of patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the MBLSG group than in the conventional LSG group.
conclusionDespite a minimal extension in operative time and a slight increase in the risk of minor, medically manageable complications (specifically surgical site infections and ecchymosis), MBLSG is a safe, clinically effective, and feasible bariatric surgical approach for selected patients who prioritize cosmetic benefits and aesthetic satisfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42498877What 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.