Re-sleeve gastrectomy is a safe and sensible intervention in selected patients: retrospective cohort study

2Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Sleeve gastrectomy is a good treatment intervention to control the metabolic syndrome in patients with obesity worldwide. However, weight regain is of great concern and would usually necessitate a reintervention. In recent years, re-sleeve gastrectomy (ReSG) has been proposed to treat weight regain in the context of a large residual stomach. Our objective was to analyze the long-term results and safety profile of this intervention in a large case series. METHODS: From September 2010 to March 2021, a retrospective cohort study in a tertiary nonuniversity hospital was performed. Seventy-nine patients received a ReSG by laparoscopy. Preoperative radiologic imaging showed a dilation of the gastric pouch exceeding 250 cc in all cases. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients (87% females) with a mean age of 44.8 years old and a mean BMI of 40.0 kg/m 2 were enrolled in the study. The mean follow-up was 44.8 months. The ReSG indication was insufficient weight loss in 37 patients (46.8%) and weight regain in 39 patients (53.2%). The authors noticed a 10.1% complications rate: gastric stenosis (5.1%), bleeding (2.5%), and incisional site hernia in 2.5%, with no death. There was no gastric fistula detected. The mean BMI decreased to 33.1 kg/m 2 after ReSG (a decrease of 6.9 kg/m 2 ). CONCLUSION: After insufficient weight loss or weight regain following sleeve gastrectomy and in the presence of localized or global gastric tube dilation, ReSG seems to be a good treatment choice and a safe procedure.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

El Khoury, L., Catheline, J. M., Taher, M., Roussel, J., Bendacha, Y., Romero, R., … Cohen, R. (2023). Re-sleeve gastrectomy is a safe and sensible intervention in selected patients: retrospective cohort study. International Journal of Surgery (London, England), 109(12), 4145–4150. https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000000743

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free