Heliyon (Mar 2024)

Magnetic anchoring device assisted-laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: A retrospective cohort study

  • Runkun Liu,
  • Yixian Guo,
  • Guozhi Yin,
  • Hang Tuo,
  • Yifeng Zhu,
  • Wei Yang,
  • Yufeng Wang

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10, no. 5
p. e26875

Abstract

Read online

Background: Bariatric surgeries, including the sleeve gastrectomy, have been recognized as the most effectively treatment strategy for severe obesity. Magnetic devices have been successfully used in bariatric surgeries. Here, we intended to evaluate the safety and efficiency of magnetic anchoring device assisted-laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (MLSG), and to make a comparison of the short-term results between conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG) and MLSG. Methods: The retrospective cohort study was carried out by analyzing and summarizing the data from a database of routinely collected data. The cohort included the patients who underwent either CLSG (n = 120) or MLSG (n = 115) at a single center between January 2018 and December 2020 with a two-year follow-up. The effects of these two surgeries on the weight loss, resolution of comorbidities and quality of life (QOL) were analyzed. Results: The two groups were similar in gender, age, body mass index, abdominal girth, as well as the type and proportion of comorbidities. And the cases in MLSG group had a markedly shorter time of operation (MLSG, 72.59 min vs. CLSG, 76.67 min; P = 0.003). Length of stay in hospital was significantly shorter in the MLSG group than that in the CLSG group (MLSG, 5.59 days vs. CLSG, 5.96 days; P = 0.016). Neither fatal event nor conversion to open surgery happened among all cases. There were no differences in terms of the postoperative complications between the two groups. Magnetic device-related mild hepatic lacerations occurred and were handled by hemostatic treatments in 3 cases. The QOL of patients in MLSG was better at 6-month after surgery, but there was no significant difference between the two groups at 1-year or 2-year after surgery. Conclusion: Both MLSG and CLSG prove safe and effective, and the patients underwent MLSG have a shorter length of stay in hospital, and a better QOL during 6 months after surgery.

Keywords