There are several surgical techniques for management of obesity, the most commonly used management strategies were;laparoscopic gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrecomy, both techniques have advantages and dr...There are several surgical techniques for management of obesity, the most commonly used management strategies were;laparoscopic gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrecomy, both techniques have advantages and drawbacks. But there are few published studies which clarified such issue and compare between both management strategies. We aimed in the present study to compare laparoscopic sleeve gastrecomy and laparoscopic gastric bypass as management surgical strategies of morbid obesity regarding technical success, degree of weight loss, degree of weight loss maintenance, postoperative and long term morbidities and degree of presence or absence of nutritional deficiencies. Patients and Methods: This is a prospective study which included a cohort of 100 patients with morbid obesity 50 of them underwent Laparoscopic gastric bypass and performed 50 underwent Laparoscopic sleeve gastrecomy with a five-year follow-up. Results: We showed that weight loss was higher in the laparoscopic sleeve gastrecomy group initially (p = 0.002), then after 2 years total weight loss was higher in the laparoscopic assisted gastric bypass group (p = 0.004). Diabetes, dyslipidemia and hypertension resolution was more common after laparoscopic assisted gastric bypass than after laparoscopic assisted sleeve gastrecomy. Occurrence of nutritional deficiencies was less commonly happened after laparoscopic assisted gastric bypass than after laparoscopic assisted sleeve gastrecomy. Conclusions: We showed a similar rate of weight reduction and resolution of nutritional deficits initially in both between laparoscopic assisted sleeve gastrecomy and laparoscopic gastric bypass maintenance of weight reduction was found more in laparoscopic assisted sleeve gastrecomy but rates of nutritional deficits were higher in such procedure.展开更多
Introduction: Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for early gastric cancer (EGC) was considered as a treatment with many advantages due to the application of laparoscopic equipment. The aim of this study was to com...Introduction: Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for early gastric cancer (EGC) was considered as a treatment with many advantages due to the application of laparoscopic equipment. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of use of laparoscopic equipment in blood loss, the number of harvested lymph nodes (HLNs), and complications between LAG and open gastrectomy (OG) for EGC. Methods: Patients received surgical treatment for early distal gastric cancer (EDGC) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were classified into three groups by different operation methods: traditional open distal gastrectomy (ODG) group, laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) group, and open distal gastrectomy with assistance of laparoscopic equipment (ODGA) group. Results: Altogether 65 patients with EDGC received surgical treatment, including 20 cases of ODG, 22 of LADG, and 23 of ODGA. No lymph node metastasis was found in all patients. 25 (38.5%) postoperative confirmed T2 were misdiagnosed as T1 preoperatively. Compared with ODG group, the blood loss was significantly reduced in LADG and ODGA groups (106.4 ± 46.0;and 73.3 ± 35.7 ml vs. 250.5 ± 65.1 ml respectively;P 0.01), but the operation time was significantly longer in these groups (231.0 ± 34.5, and 222.5 ± 42.6 min vs. 128.5 ± 22.3 min respectively;P 0.01). No difference was found in the blood loss, operation time, the number of harvested lymph nodes and the types of gastrointestinal continuity reconstruction between LADG and ODGA groups. No difference was found in the postoperative complications among the three groups. Conclusions: Laparoscopic equipment might be the key factor in the reduction of blood loss and the delay of operation time for LADG. Application of laparoscopic equipment in open gastrectomy can be used as a training method to shorten learning curve for LAG beginners.展开更多
文摘There are several surgical techniques for management of obesity, the most commonly used management strategies were;laparoscopic gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrecomy, both techniques have advantages and drawbacks. But there are few published studies which clarified such issue and compare between both management strategies. We aimed in the present study to compare laparoscopic sleeve gastrecomy and laparoscopic gastric bypass as management surgical strategies of morbid obesity regarding technical success, degree of weight loss, degree of weight loss maintenance, postoperative and long term morbidities and degree of presence or absence of nutritional deficiencies. Patients and Methods: This is a prospective study which included a cohort of 100 patients with morbid obesity 50 of them underwent Laparoscopic gastric bypass and performed 50 underwent Laparoscopic sleeve gastrecomy with a five-year follow-up. Results: We showed that weight loss was higher in the laparoscopic sleeve gastrecomy group initially (p = 0.002), then after 2 years total weight loss was higher in the laparoscopic assisted gastric bypass group (p = 0.004). Diabetes, dyslipidemia and hypertension resolution was more common after laparoscopic assisted gastric bypass than after laparoscopic assisted sleeve gastrecomy. Occurrence of nutritional deficiencies was less commonly happened after laparoscopic assisted gastric bypass than after laparoscopic assisted sleeve gastrecomy. Conclusions: We showed a similar rate of weight reduction and resolution of nutritional deficits initially in both between laparoscopic assisted sleeve gastrecomy and laparoscopic gastric bypass maintenance of weight reduction was found more in laparoscopic assisted sleeve gastrecomy but rates of nutritional deficits were higher in such procedure.
文摘Introduction: Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for early gastric cancer (EGC) was considered as a treatment with many advantages due to the application of laparoscopic equipment. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of use of laparoscopic equipment in blood loss, the number of harvested lymph nodes (HLNs), and complications between LAG and open gastrectomy (OG) for EGC. Methods: Patients received surgical treatment for early distal gastric cancer (EDGC) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were classified into three groups by different operation methods: traditional open distal gastrectomy (ODG) group, laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) group, and open distal gastrectomy with assistance of laparoscopic equipment (ODGA) group. Results: Altogether 65 patients with EDGC received surgical treatment, including 20 cases of ODG, 22 of LADG, and 23 of ODGA. No lymph node metastasis was found in all patients. 25 (38.5%) postoperative confirmed T2 were misdiagnosed as T1 preoperatively. Compared with ODG group, the blood loss was significantly reduced in LADG and ODGA groups (106.4 ± 46.0;and 73.3 ± 35.7 ml vs. 250.5 ± 65.1 ml respectively;P 0.01), but the operation time was significantly longer in these groups (231.0 ± 34.5, and 222.5 ± 42.6 min vs. 128.5 ± 22.3 min respectively;P 0.01). No difference was found in the blood loss, operation time, the number of harvested lymph nodes and the types of gastrointestinal continuity reconstruction between LADG and ODGA groups. No difference was found in the postoperative complications among the three groups. Conclusions: Laparoscopic equipment might be the key factor in the reduction of blood loss and the delay of operation time for LADG. Application of laparoscopic equipment in open gastrectomy can be used as a training method to shorten learning curve for LAG beginners.
