Introduction The increased prevalence of obesity worldwide and low incidence of postoperative complications make the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) a clear public choice for obese‐related individuals. Pre‐existing studies reported contentious outcomes regarding the association with gastrointestinal symptoms after adding omentopexy (Ome) or gastropexy (Gas) to LSG. The present meta‐analysis attempted to evaluate the pros and cons of operating Ome/Gas after LSG concerning gastrointestinal symptoms. Methods The data extraction and study quality assessment were independently performed by two individuals. The PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to October 1, 2022, using the keywords LSG, omentopexy, and gastropexy to identify randomized controlled trial studies. Results Of the original 157 records, 13 studies with 3515 patients were included. LSG with Ome/Gas excels the LSG group in nausea (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% CI[0.46, 0.70]; P < .00001), reflux (OR = 0.57; 95% CI [0.46, 0.70]; P < .00001), vomiting (OR = 0.41; 95% CI [0.25, 0.67]; P = .0004) on gastrointestinal symptoms and bleeding (OR = 0.36; 95% CI [0.22, 0.59]; P < .0001), leakage (OR = 0.19; 95% CI [0.09, 0.43]; P < .0001), gastric torsion (OR = 0.23; 95% CI [0.07, 0.75]; P = .01) on post‐LSG complications. Further, LSG with Ome/Gas was superior to LSG regarding the result of excess body mass index loss in 1 year after surgery (mean difference = 1.83; 95% CI [0.59, 3.07]; P = .004). However, no significant associations were shown between groups in wound infection and the resulting weight or body mass index 1 year after surgery. Of note, subgroup analysis indicated that gastroesophageal reflux disease can be alleviated by adding Ome/Gas post‐LSG in those who used small bougies from 32 to 36 Fr (OR = 0.24; 95% CI [0.17, 0.34]; P < .00001) in contrast with large bougies over 36 Fr. Conclusion Most results elucidated the impact of adding Ome/Gas after LSG in reducing the incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms. Additionally, more studies should be conducted to find the relations between other indicators in the present analysis due to the poor cases.
Background In previous systematic reviews, meta-analysis was lacking, resulting in the statistical difference between the data of different surgeries being impossible to judge. This meta-analysis aims to contrast the fertility results and cancer outcomes between open and minimally invasive surgery. Method We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus to collect studies that included open and minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. A random-effect model calculated the weighted average difference of each primary outcome via Review Manager V.5.4. Result Eight studies (1369 patients) were incorporated into our study. For fertility results, the Open group excels MIS group in pregnancies-Third trimester delivery[OR = 2.68; 95% CI (1.29, 5.59); P = 0.008]. Nevertheless, there were no statistical differences in clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and second-trimester rate. Concerning cancer outcomes, no difference was detected in the overall survival [OR = 1.56; 95% CI (0.70, 3.45); P = 0.27] and recurrence [OR = 0.63; 95% CI (0.35, 1.12); P = 0.12]. Concerning surgery-related outcomes, the comprehensive effects revealed that the estimated blood loss of the Open group was higher than that of the MIS group[MD = 139.40; 95% CI (79.05, 199.75); P < 0.0001]. However, there was no difference between the postoperative complication rate in the two groups [OR = 1.52; 95% CI (0.89, 2.60); P = 0.12]. Conclusion This meta-analysis suggested that the fertility result of the Open group may be better than the MIS group, while the MIS group has better surgery-related outcomes. Owing to the poor cases of our study, a more robust conclusion requires more relevant articles in the future. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42022352999
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.