Outcome analysis of single incision vs traditional multiport sleeve gastrectomy: a matched cohort study

Single Incision Versus Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most widely performed bariatric surgery and has been associated with excellent outcomes and a significant reduction in obesity-related morbidity and mortality. Traditionally, this surgery is performed using five to seven trocars. However, LSG performed through a single trocar is emerging as a less invasive method of performing this surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare the outcomes and complication rates of single-port versus multi-port LSG. We searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for articles published from 2008 to 2023, in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Data on variables such as operative time, excess weight loss, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative leak, and incisional hernia rates were collected and analyzed using a random-effects model. Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between the single-port LSG (SILSG) and conventional LSG (CLSG) groups in terms of operative time, rate, intraoperative complications, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and excess weight loss (EWL). Furthermore, single incision sleeve gastrectomy showed better satisfaction with the cosmetic score. SILSG is a viable alternative procedure, showing comparable outcomes to multiport conventional sleeve gastrectomy, in addition, to a better cosmetic satisfaction score.

Magnetic-Assisted Reduced-Port Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy is one of the most popular bariatric surgeries. With the advent of new technologies, a reduced-port approach assisted by magnets for sleeve gastrectomy (RPSG-MA) has been developed. The aim of our study is to compare the short-term results of RPSG-MA vs conventional laparoscopic SG (CLSG).

METHODS

A comparative study was performed. We compared two groups who underwent RPSG-MA (n=150) and CLSG (n=135) between January 2020 and January 2022.

RESULTS

Both groups were similar in body mass index, age, sex, and type of comorbidities. The operative time was similar in both groups (RPSG-MA, 52.5 min vs CLSG, 52.9 min; p = 0.829). Length of hospital (1.07 days) stay was significantly shorter in the RPSG-MA group (p = 0.00) than in the CLSG group (1.51 days). There were no conversions to open surgery in any patient or any fatal event. Complications encountered were similar in both groups postoperative. There were minor adverse events directly related to the magnetic device in 3 cases, these being mild hepatic lacerations, resolved with hemostatic measures.

CONCLUSION

The magnet-assisted reduced-port gastric sleeve compared to the conventional technique has proven to be safe, technically feasible and with multiple benefits.

Trocar number and placement for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and comparison of single-incision and conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG) has been conducted in multiple centers for treating morbid obesity, however, there are no standard criteria for (1) placing the trocar; and (2) how many trocars should be used. Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SLSG), a newly emerged technique in 2008, has been proposed as an alternative to CLSG in recent years, however, there is no definite evidence for this.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy cases from January 2006 to October 2022. We then summarized the trocar numbers and placement patterns among these studies. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the difference between SLSG and CLSG in the perioperative and postoperative indices.

RESULTS

A total of 61 studies involving 20 180 patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for treating morbid obesity were included in the systematic review, including 11 on SLSG, 35 on CLSG, and 15 studies comparing SLSG and CLSG. A systematic review showed that the trocar number varied in different CLSG studies, mainly using four or five trocars. The trocars were mainly placed in position, presenting an inverted trapezoid pattern and a left-predominant pattern. Meta-analysis showed that the operative time in the SLSG was significantly higher than that in the CLSG, and the pain Visual Analog Scale rating on postoperative day 1 in the CLSG was significantly higher than in the SLSG. There were no statistical significances in the other complications or surgical efficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

In the CLSG, the majority of the trocars were arranged in an inverted trapezoid pattern and were of the left-predominant type. Although SLSG is a feasible technique in selected patients, there is insufficient evidence to recommend its widespread use compared with CLSG. High-quality randomized controlled trials with large study populations and long follow-up periods will be required in the future.

Safety and effectiveness of reduced-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in Asian morbidly obese patients

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is the most frequently performed surgical intervention in patients with morbid obesity. Single-port sleeve gastrectomy (SPSG) and reduced-port sleeve gastrectomy (RPSG) are increasingly reported in the literature. This study compared the short-term outcomes of SPSG, RPSG, and conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG). This is a single-center retrospective study of 238 morbidly obese patients, of whom 148 (62.2%) patients completed follow-up one year after surgery. Propensity score matching was performed on factors influencing the choice of approach, and fifty patients from the SPSG + RPSG and CLSG groups were successfully matched. The groups were comparable in postoperative weight loss, morbidity, pain, and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities. The percentage of excess weight loss after one year was 90.0% in the SPSG + RPSG group and 75.2% in the CLSG group (P < 0.001). Complication rates showed no significant difference. The CLSG group was superior in dyslipidemia remission (17 [37.0%] vs. 28 [63.6%], P = 0.018) in the total cohort; however, this difference disappeared after matching. Our results suggest that single-port and reduced-port approaches could be alternative choices for selected patients. As our study was limited by its retrospective nature and potential selection bias, further studies are necessary to set standardized guidelines for SPSG.

Reduced-Port Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbidly Obese Japanese Patients: a Retrospective Case-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery remains controversial due to technical challenges that can lead to suboptimal outcomes, and data pertaining to operative and clinical outcomes of reduced-port sleeve gastrectomy (RPSG) vs. conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG) are lacking.

AIMS

This retrospective case-matched study aimed to compare midterm (2-year) outcomes of RPSG and of CLSG.

METHODS

Patients included in the study had undergone laparoscopic bariatric surgery at our center between 2010 and 2017. Thirty-one consecutive female patients who underwent RPSG were compared to a sex-, age-, body mass index-matched group of 31 patients who underwent CLSG. Outcomes were evaluated and compared between groups.

RESULTS

Estimated blood loss volume, incidences of intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of postoperative hospital stay did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Operation time was significantly greater in the RPSG group than in the CLSG group (148.7 ± 22.6 vs. 120.2 ± 25.9 min, respectively; p < 0.001). Excess weight loss at 1 year was 105.9% and 109.7%, respectively (p = 0.94) and at 2 years was 101.1% and 105.3%, respectively (p = 0.64). One RPSG patient required placement of additional trocars because of bleeding from short gastric vessels, but conversion to open surgery was not required.

CONCLUSIONS

RPSG is feasible in carefully selected bariatric patients and results in midterm outcomes comparable to those observed after CLSG. Good cosmesis is a potential benefit of RPSG.

Comparison of Single-Incision and Conventional Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity: a Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SILSG) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG) in obese patients. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of these two techniques.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of existing literature obtained through a systematic literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library CENTRAL databases from 2009 to 2019 was conducted.

RESULTS

Eleven articles including 1168 patients were analyzed. Patients in the SILSG group reported greater satisfaction with cosmetic scar outcomes than those in the CLSG group (SMD = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.10 to 3.83, P = 0.00). There was no significant difference between the SILSG group and the CLSG group regarding operative time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, conversion rate, intraoperative complications, length of hospital stay, postoperative analgesia, postoperative complications, excess weight loss (EWL), and improvements in comorbidities (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to CLSG, SILSG resulted in improved cosmetic satisfaction and showed no disadvantages in terms of surgical outcomes; thus, SILSG can serve as an alternative to CLSG for obese patients. Nonetheless, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with large study populations and long follow-up periods are needed.

Comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy leak rates in five staple-line reinforcement options: a systematic review

Background

Staple-line leaks following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) remain a concerning complication. Staple-line buttressing is largely adopted as an acceptable reinforcement but data regarding leaks have been equivocal. This study compared staple-line leaks in five reinforcement options during LSG: no reinforcement (NO-SLR), oversewing (suture), nonabsorbable bovine pericardial strips (BPS), tissue sealant or fibrin glue (Seal), or absorbable polymer membrane (APM).

Methods

This systematic review study of articles published between 2012 and 2016 regarding LSG leak rates aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Variables of interest included leak rates, bleeding, and complications in addition to surgical and population parameters. An independent Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the number of patients with and without leaks for the different reinforcement options.

Results

Of the 1633 articles identified, 148 met inclusion criteria and represented 40,653 patients. Differences in age (older in APM; p = 0.001), starting body mass index (lower in Suture; p = 0.008), and distance from pylorus (closer in BPS; p = 0.04) were observed between groups, but mean bougie size was equivalent. The overall leak rate of 1.5% (607 leaks) ranged from 0.7% for APM (significantly lower than all groups; p ≤ 0.007 for next lowest leak rate) to 2.7% (BPS).

Conclusions

This systematic review of staple-line leaks following LSG demonstrated a significantly lower rate using APM staple-line reinforcement as compared to oversewing, use of sealants, BPS reinforcement, or no reinforcement. Variation in surgical technique may also contribute to leak rates.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-019-06782-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.

METHODS

An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

In general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

Postoperative Bleeding and Leakage After Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy is being performed increasingly, mainly due to its low morbidity and mortality, but complications do occur. The aim of this study was to evaluate bleeding and leakage rates of primary and revisional sleeve gastrectomy in a personal series of 664 consecutive patients.

METHODS

Medical charts of all patients undergoing a primary or revisional sleeve gastrectomy between August 2008 and December 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. Subgroup analysis compared bleeding in patients after reduced port versus multiport technique and primary versus revisional sleeve gastrectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 664 sleeve gastrectomies (489 women and 175 men) were performed. Mean age and body mass index were 36.03 ± 11.4 years and 42.9 ± 8.3 kg/m², respectively. Mean operative time was 58.5 ± 20.0 min, with a 0.15 % conversion rate. Mean hospital stay was 2.1 ± 0.3 days. The overall 30-day complication rate was 7.5 %. Thirteen patients sustained postoperative bleeding (2 %), three of whom required reoperation (0.5 %). Staple line leakage and mortality were both nil in this series. No difference in postoperative complications was found between the subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-surgeon, single-center experience, sleeve gastrectomy was a safe and effective bariatric procedure with a low complication rate. Staple line reinforcement by oversewing was associated with low bleeding complications and no leakage. The majority of patients with postoperative bleeding could be managed conservatively. In our experience, reduced port technique and revisional sleeve gastrectomy had similar complication rates compared to multiport and primary sleeve gastrectomy.

Prospective Comparison and Quality of Life for Single-Incision and Conventional Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in a Series of Morbidly Obese Patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has gained a wide acceptance in the surgical community with an increasing popularity in the field of bariatric surgery. Simultaneously more surgeons have become acquainted with the single port techniques and sleeve gastrectomy has been regarded as an ideal field of application. Literature is scarce about operative and clinical outcomes of single port sleeve gastrectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy. The primary purpose of the study was to compare operative outcomes in the two study groups. Assessment and comparison of functional outcomes in terms of quality of life between groups was also performed.

METHODS

Prospective data on 130 consecutive patients who underwent randomized SI or CL sleeve gastrectomy were collected between January 2009 to December 2014. Preoperative parameters, outcomes, post-operative functional results and quality of life, according to the short-form SF-36 questionnaire, were evaluated and compared between groups.

RESULTS

65 patients underwent conventional laparoscopic (CL) and 65 single incision (SI) sleeve gastrectomy. Operative time, post-operative pain, in-hospital stay, and complications were similar in the two groups. No difference emerged with respect to passage of flatus and resumption of oral intake (p = NS). Cosmetic results were excellent in SI patients with higher satisfaction rates. Post-operative quality of life was significant higher compared to baseline (p < 0.05), and comparable between the two procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Single incision sleeve gastrectomy is safe, effective and comparable to the conventional laparoscopic technique in terms of outcomes. Post-operative quality of life is comparable between the two procedures.

Is a "retained fundus" seen on postoperative upper gastrointestinal series after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy predictive of inferior weight loss?

BACKGROUND

Postoperative upper gastrointestinal series (UGI) has never been shown to be effective in ruling out leaks or obstruction after gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy. In sleeve gastrectomies, UGI will define the shape of the sleeve and rule out a retained fundus that was not optimally excised during surgery.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate the impact of a "retained fundus" on weight loss to determine whether UGIs can be used to gauge success of the operation and predict outcome.

SETTING

Urban community teaching hospital, United States.

METHODS

Retrospective study analyzing routine UGIs performed on 203 consecutive patients. Exclusion criteria included low quality UGI (absence of a still image of complete fill with contrast), revisions from gastric band to sleeve, absence of weight-loss data, postoperative leak, and postoperative stenosis.

RESULTS

A total of 149 patients were included. Mean excess weight loss at one year for groups 1 through 4 was 67.3%, 72.7%, 67.8%, and 65.9%, respectively. There was no significant statistical difference in excess weight loss between the optimal group and the group of both mild and severe retained fundus (P = .22). The weight loss remained equivalent even when comparing the optimal sleeves with only those with severe retained fundus (P = .19). There was a statistically significant difference in quality of sleeve gastrectomies on UGI with surgical experience showing less retained fundus on the UGIs (P = .006) in the latter half of the series.

CONCLUSION

Retained fundus does not seem to cause inferior weight loss in the early postoperative period. Thus, UGI cannot predict weight loss outcomes in the short term.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Review and a Critical Appraisal

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has attracted a great deal of interest in the surgical community in recent years, including bariatric surgery. Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SILSG) has been proposed as an alternative to the multiport laparoscopic procedure; however, it has yet to meet wide acceptance and application.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to summarize existing data on SILSG and check the procedure's feasibility, technical details, safety, and, if possible, outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We checked the most important databases for studies concerning SILSG and included all these that summarized the criteria placed and contained the data needed for this review. We excluded case reports.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies complied with the criteria of our review, containing a total of 1679 patients. Their mean age has been 38.91 years and the mean preoperative body mass index has been 41.8 kg/m². In majority of cases (60.5%), a left upper quadrant incision has been preferred and in 97.6%, a commercially available multiport system has been picked. A wide variety of instruments have been used and mean operating time has been 94.6 minutes. One conversion to open surgery has been reported and 7.4% required the placement of additional ports. There was a complication rate of 7.38% (most common being bleeding with a rate of 2.5%) and a reoperation rate of 2.8%. Mean excess weight loss for a follow-up of 1 year was achieved in 53.7% of patients and was 70.06%. A tendency for less analgesia and better wound satisfaction has been reported.

CONCLUSIONS

SILSG is safe and feasible. However, there is insufficient evidence to recommend it as the new gold standard for sleeve gastrectomy in the place of conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Randomized controlled trials are needed to analyze the results and the possible benefits of this technique.

Task performance in standard laparoscopy in comparison with single-incision laparoscopy in a modified skills trainer

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopy (SIL) is similar to conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP), but carries specific technical challenges due to lack of triangulation, reduced dexterity, conflicts due to inline instrumentation, and impaired visualization. This study was designed to evaluate technical skill performance of SIL versus LAP surgery in a simulated environment.

METHODS

We developed a modified laparoscopic skills trainer for SIL based upon the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) model. This includes a standard laparoscopic tower for visualization, allowing replication of the conflicts between scope and instruments. It also has a modified trainer box allowing use of different access devices and instruments for SIL. Sixteen subjects at different levels of training (novice through expert) completed four FLS tasks with standard LAP techniques. They then practiced the same tasks using SIL technique until they reached a steady state of performance. The first and last SIL trials were recorded.

RESULTS

Baseline SIL peg transfer was worse than FLS (254 ± 157 s vs 99 ± 27, p < 0.0002). Final SIL time was still significantly worse than FLS (173 ± 130, p < 0.02). FLS, baseline SIL, and final SIL circle cutting were not significantly different (p = 0.058). Final SIL loop ligation was significantly faster than FLS (48 ± 19 vs 70 ± 42, p < 0.05). FLS suturing was faster than SIL suturing (281 ± 188 vs. 526 ± 105, p < 0.01). There was substantial dropout due to frustration with SIL, and only two surgeons were able to successfully complete SIL suturing.

CONCLUSIONS

There are technical challenges with SIL that vary depending on task. Peg transfer and suturing were significantly impaired in SIL, while circle cutting was not significantly affected, and ligating loop was faster with SIL than LAP. These challenges may impact clinical outcomes of SIL and should influence training in SIL as well as future product development.

Does single-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy result in improved short-term perioperative outcomes compared to conventional multi-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy?

A best evidence topic in bariatric surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question asked whether single-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy produces better short-term perioperative outcomes compared to the conventional multi-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in the treatment of morbid obesity. A Pubmed search generated 82 papers, 6 of which represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. Of the 6, 1 paper was an updated analysis of the same patient cohort. The evidence on this subject is good. Five papers were level III, nonrandomized studies, 2 of which were prospective and 3 were retrospective cohort studies. The sixth paper was a level II, randomized, prospective study. We conclude that single-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy results in less use of postoperative analgesia and better cosmetic satisfaction compared to multi-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in the short-term. The two groups showed comparable results in terms of mean operative time, mean hospitalization, and percentage excess weight loss. There was no difference in rate of postoperative complications including trocar site incisional hernia, staple line leaks, and bleeding.

Single Incision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Review

We aim to summarize the existing evidence on the use of single incision sleeve gastrectomy (SILSG) for morbid obesity. A thorough literature search for studies reporting outcomes of SILSG was performed. Data on patient demographics, operative details, and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Sixteen studies incorporating 945 patients (90.6 % women) with a mean age of 37 years were included in the analysis. A commercially available single-port device was used in 89.7 % of the cases. The mean operative time was 64.7 min, with two cases (0.2 %) of intraoperative and 27 cases (2.8 %) of postoperative complications. There were no perioperative deaths reported, while the mean postoperative hospital stay was 2.5 days. SILSG is a feasible and safe approach, with low complication and mortality rates in carefully selected patients.