Assessment of Surgical Complications in Morbid Obese Patients, The Candidates for 2 Methods of Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery (Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass, Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy)

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdolreza Pazouki ◽  
Somayyeh Mokhber ◽  
Sajedeh Riazi ◽  
Peyman Alibeigi ◽  
Mohammadreza Abdolhosseini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Gastric Bypass ◽  
Sleeve Gastrectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass ◽  
Surgical Complications ◽  
Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Morbid Obese

scholarly journals OUTCOME OF LAPAROSCOPIC SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY AND LAPAROSCOPIC MINI GASTRIC BYPASS ON EGYPTIAN MORBID OBESE PATIENTS

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-196
Author(s):  
Osama ElAtrash ◽  
Walid Abdel Hamid ◽  
Mohamed Marzouk ◽  
Mohamed Abdel Hamid ◽  
Ahmed Abdel Hafeez
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Bypass ◽  
Sleeve Gastrectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy ◽  
Mini Gastric Bypass ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Morbid Obese

scholarly journals Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy or Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass for Patients with Metabolic Syndrome: An MBSAQIP Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (10) ◽  
pp. 1108-1112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reza Fazl Alizadeh ◽  
Shiri Li ◽  
Sahil Gambhir ◽  
Marcelo W. Hinojosa ◽  
Brian R. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Metabolic Syndrome ◽  
Gastric Bypass ◽  
Sleeve Gastrectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Perioperative Morbidity ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Severely Obese

In patients undergoing bariatric surgery, the presence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) contributes to perioperative morbidity. We aimed to evaluate the utilization and outcome of severely obese patients with MetS who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Using the 2015 and 2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database, data were obtained for patients with MetS undergoing LSG or LRYGB. There were 29,588 MetS patients (LSG: 58.7% vs LRYGB: 41.3%). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (0.1% for LSG vs 0.2% for LRYGB, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.58, confidence interval (CI) 0.32–1.05, P = 0.07) or length of stay between groups (2 ± 2 for LSG vs 2.2 ± 2 days for LRYGB, P = 0.40). Compared with LRYGB, LSG was associated with significantly shorter operative time (78 ± 39 vs 122 ± 54 minutes, P < 0.01), lower overall morbidity (2.3% vs 4.4%, AOR 0.53, CI 0.46–0.60, P < 0.01), lower serious morbidity (1.5% vs 2.3%, AOR 0.64, CI 0.53–0.76, P < 0.01), lower 30-day reoperation (1.2% vs 2.3%, AOR 0.52, CI 0.43–0.63, P < 0.01), and lower 30-day readmission (4.2% vs 6.6%, AOR 0.62, CI 0.55–0.69, P < 0.01). In conclusion, LSG is the predominant operation being performed for severely obese patients with MetS, and its popularity may in part be related to its improved perioperative safety profile.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document