4.4 Article

Short- and Mid-term Outcomes of Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity: The Experience of the Spanish National Registry

期刊

OBESITY SURGERY
卷 19, 期 9, 页码 1203-1210

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-009-9892-9

关键词

Sleeve gastrectomy; Mid-term results; Spanish National Registry; Obesity surgery

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reports on laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) communicate very good short-term results on very high-risk morbid obese patients. However, mid- and long-term results are still unknown. A National Registry has been created in Spain to achieve information on the outcomes of this bariatric procedure. Data were obtained from 17 centers and collected in a database. Technical issues, preoperative comorbid conditions, hospital stay, early and late complications, and short- and mid-term weight loss were analyzed. Five hundred forty patients were included; 76% were women. Mean BMI was 48.1 +/- 10. Mean age was 44.1 +/- 11.8. Morbidity rate was 5.2% and mortality rate 0.36%. Complications presented more frequently in superobese patients (OR, 2.8 (1.18-6.65)), male (OR, 2.98 (1.26-7.0)), and patients > 55 years old (OR, 2.8 (1.14-6.8)). Staple-line reinforcement was related to a lower complication rate (3.7 vs 8.8%; p = 0.039). Mean hospital stay was 4.8 +/- 8.2 days. Mean follow-up was 16.5 +/- 10.6 months (1-73). Mean percent excess BMI loss (EBL) at 3 months was 38.8 +/- 22, 55.6 +/- 8 at 6 months, 68.1 +/- 28 at 12 months, and 72.4 +/- 31 at 24 months. %EBL was superior in patients with lower initial BMI and lower age. Bougie caliber was an inverse predictive factor of %EBL at 12 and 24 months (RR, 23.3 (11.4-35.2)). DM is remitted in 81% of the patients and HTA improved in 63.2% of them. A second-stage surgery was performed in 18 patients (3.2%). LSG provides good short- and mid-term results with a low morbid-mortality rate. Better results are obtained in younger patients with lowest BMI. Staple-line reinforcement and a thinner bougie are recommended to improve outcome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据