Postoperative pain after conventional laparoscopic versus single-port sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled pilot study

Morales-Conde, Salvador; Água, I. Alarcón del; Moreno, Antonio Barranco; Macías, M. Socas

doi:10.1016/j.soard.2016.11.012

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study by Kumar et al [32] was not included as it was the first in man trial focused on procedure development and reproducibility of ESG technique. Fifteen studies were included in the final analysis, of which 8 studies reported on the outcomes with ESG [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] and seven reported on the outcomes with LSG [41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. The schematic diagram of study selection is illustrated in Supplementary Fig.…”

Section: Search Results and Population Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty; how does it compare to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and study aims Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a novel moderately invasive technique in endo-bariatrics as compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Data is limited as to its efficacy and safety. Methods We searched multiple databases from inception through August 2019 to identify studies that reported on ESG in the treatment of obesity. Our goals were to calculate the pooled rates of total weight loss (%TWL), excess weight loss (%EWL), and body mass index (BMI) at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months with ESG. We included studies that reported on LSG, in a similar time frame as ESG, and compared the 12-month outcomes. Results From eight studies on ESG (1815 patients), the pooled rates of %TWL at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months were 8.7 (7.2–10.2), 15.3 (14.1–16.6) and 17.1 (15.1–19.1), respectively. The pooled rates of %EWL at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months were 31.7 (29.3–34.1), 59.4 (57–61.8) and 63 (51.3–74.6), respectively. The pooled rates of BMI at 1 m, 6 m, and 12 m were 32.6 (31–34.3), 30.4 (29–31.8) and 30 (27.7–32.3, I2 = 97), respectively. At 12 months, the pooled %TWL, %EWL and BMI with LSG (7 studies, 2179 patients) were 30.5 (27.4–33.5), 69.3 (60.1–78.4) and 29.3 (27.1–31.4) respectively. On comparison analysis, %TWL with LSG was superior to ESG (P = 0.001). %EWL and BMI were comparable. All adverse events, bleeding and gastro-esophageal reflux disease were significantly lower with ESG when compared to LSG. Conclusion ESG demonstrates acceptable weight loss parameters and seems to have a better safety profile when compared to LSG.

show abstract

Section: Search Results and Population Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty; how does it compare to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All are comparative studies, evaluating SIES versus multi-port conventional laparoscopy (CL). In eight studies, the performed procedure is sleeve gastrectomy [111–118] and in two studies gastric bypass [119, 120]. Liver retraction was achieved by either liver suspension tape attached to two Prolene sutures or a 3-mm mini liver retractor.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As this procedure is being used rarely nowadays, studies on SIES laparoscopic gastric banding were not evaluated in our analysis. Only one of the studies from our literature search is an RCT [111], the other studies are three prospective and six retrospective comparative studies. The prospective studies were reviewed for patient-related outcomes, and the retrospective studies were reviewed for major complications.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLaparoscopic 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.MethodsAn 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsConsidering 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.

show abstract

“…[2][3][4][5] As minimally invasive surgery has rapidly developed in recent years, novel efforts have been aimed at minimizing surgical trauma and improving cosmetic outcomes. These concepts have led to the development of single-port laparoscopic surgery for various kinds of diseases [6][7][8][9][10]. Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) was rstly introduced by Esposito in 1998 and has been suggested potential advantages including better cosmetic outcome, less postoperative pain, and avoidance of possible hemorrhagic complications from injuring epigastric vessels [11][12][13][14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of single-port laparoscopic approach on postoperative pain and cosmesis for acute appendicitis: a comparison with multi-port laparoscopic approach

Kim

Cho

Bae

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical abdominal emergency. Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) has been suggested potential advantages including less postoperative pain and better cosmesis. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative pain and cosmetic outcomes between SPLA and multi-port laparoscopic appendectomy (MPLA) for acute appendicitis.Materials and methods: The study included 47 patients who underwent SPLA and 51 patients who underwent MPLA for acute appendicitis between August 2014 and November 2017. The patient scar assessment questionnaire (PSAQ) was used to assess cosmetic outcomes. Results: MPLA involved a longer median operative time than MPLA (60 vs. 47.5 minutes, p=0.02). There were no apparent differences in the time before diet tolerance, length of hospital stay, inflammatory laboratory findings including C-reactive protein and white blood cell count, and postoperative complication rate. SPLA patients had a smaller total incision length (2.0 vs. 2.5 cm, p<0.001) and the total number of analgesics used on postoperative day 0 in the SPLA group was significantly lower than that of the MPLA group (1 vs. 1, p=0.011). The PSAQ scores showed that the SPLA group had a better overall outcome than the MPLA group with respect to total score (48 vs. 55; p = 0.026), appearance (15 vs. 18; p = 0.002) and consciousness (8 vs. 10; p = 0.005), but not in the satisfaction with appearance and symptoms subscales.Conclusion: SPLA is safe and feasible and provides better cosmetic outcomes and less analgesic requirements on the day of surgery compared to MPLA.

show abstract

Postoperative pain after conventional laparoscopic versus single-port sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled pilot study

Cited by 16 publications

References 27 publications

Outcomes of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty; how does it compare to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcomes of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty; how does it compare to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

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

Impact of single-port laparoscopic approach on postoperative pain and cosmesis for acute appendicitis: a comparison with multi-port laparoscopic approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About