Laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass

Laparoscopic bypass has become a common approach for the treatment of morbid obesity. This article compares the results of laparoscopic gastric bypass with that of open gastric bypass based on published data from prospective series, comparative studies, and randomized clinical trials.     

Laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass in the treatment of morbid obesity: a randomized prospective study

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare the results of open versus laparoscopic gastric bypass in the treatment of morbid obesity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Gastric bypass is one of the most commonly acknowledged surgical techniques for the management of morbid obesity. It is usually performed as an open surgery procedure, although now some groups perform it via the laparoscopic approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between June 1999 and January 2002 we conducted a randomized prospective study in 104 patients diagnosed with morbid obesity. The patients were divided into 2 groups: 1 group with gastric bypass via the open approach (OGBP) comprising 51 patients, and 1 group with gastric bypass via the laparoscopic approach (LGBP) comprising 53 patients. The parameters compared were as follows: operating time, intraoperative complications, early (<30 days) and late (>30 days) postoperative complications, hospital stay, and short-term evolution of body mass index. RESULTS: Mean operating time was 186.4 minutes (125-290) in the LGBP group and 201.7 minutes (129-310) in the OGBP group (P < 0.05). Conversion to laparotomy was necessary in 8% of the LGBP patients. Early postoperative complications (<30 days) occurred in 22.6% of the LGBP group compared with 29.4% of the OGBP group, with no significant differences. Late complications (>30 days) occurred in 11% of the LGBP group compared with 24% of the OGBP group (P < 0.05). The differences observed between the 2 groups are the result of a high incidence of abdominal wall hernias in the OGBP group. Mean hospital stay was 5.2 days (1-13) in the LGBP group and 7.9 days (2-28) in the OGBP group (P < 0.05). Evolution of body mass index during a mean follow-up of 23 months was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: LGBP is a good surgical technique for the management of morbid obesity and has clear advantages over OGBP, such as a reduction in abdominal wall complications and a shorter hospital stay. The midterm weight loss is similar with both techniques. One inconvenience is that LGBP has a more complex learning curve than other advanced laparoscopic techniques, which may be associated with an increase in postoperative complications.     

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are the mainstays of bariatric surgery in recent years. In addition, there has been an increased interest in the quality of life (QoL) of obese patients after surgery. This study examined the QoL of patients who had undergone either LSG or LRYGB. We retrieved the literature from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database before November 2019. A total of 10 articles and 2327 obese patients were included in our meta-analysis. The QoL scoring tools included in the statistical analysis are the following: the gastrointestinal quality of life index, 36-items short-form health survey, bariatric analysis and reporting outcome system, and the Moorehead-Ardelt quality of life questionnaire II. Although the QoL score of the LRYGB group was higher than that of the LSG group in the bariatric analysis and reporting outcome system subgroup, statistical analysis showed no difference in the postoperative QoL of LSG and LRYGB. In our study, no difference was found in the QoL between LSG and LRYGB. Therefore, in terms of postoperative QoL, surgical methods should be selected on the basis of the patients’ condition and level of understanding of the surgeries.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The value of laparoscopy in appendicitis is not established. Studies suffer from multiple limitations. Our aim is to compare the safety and benefits of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a prospective randomized double blind study. METHODS: Two hundred forty-seven patients were analyzed following either laparoscopic or open appendectomy. A standardized wound dressing was applied blinding both patients and independent data collectors. Surgical technique was standardized among 4 surgeons. The main outcome measures were postoperative complications. Secondary outcome measures included evaluation of pain and activity scores at base line preoperatively and on every postoperative day, as well as resumption of diet and length of stay. Activity scores and quality of life were assessed on short-term follow-up. RESULTS: There was no mortality. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups (18.5% versus 17% in the laparoscopic and open groups respectively), but some early complications in the laparoscopic group required a reoperation. Operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (80 minutes versus 60 minutes; P = 0.000) while there was no difference in the pain scores and medications, resumption of diet, length of stay, or activity scores. At 2 weeks, there was no difference in the activity or pain scores, but physical health and general scores on the short-form 36 (SF36) quality of life assessment forms were significantly better in the laparoscopic group. Appendectomy for acute or complicated (perforated and gangrenous) appendicitis had similar complication rates, regardless of the technique (P = 0.181). CONCLUSIONS: Unlike other minimally invasive procedures, laparoscopic appendectomy did not offer a significant advantage over open appendectomy in all studied parameters except quality of life scores at 2 weeks. It also took longer to perform. The choice of the procedure should be based on surgeon or patient preference.     

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: 10-year results of a prospective,randomized trial

BackgroundThere are few studies of long-term outcomes for either laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of patients randomly assigned to undergo LAGB or LRYGB at 10 years.MethodsLAGB, using the pars flaccida technique, and standard LRYGB were performed. From January 2000 to November 2000, 51 patients (mean age 34.0 ± 8.9 years; range 20–49) were randomly allocated to undergo either LAGB (n = 27, 5 men and 22 women; mean age 33.3 years; mean weight 120 kg; mean body mass index [BMI] 43.4 kg/m²) or LRYGB (n = 24, 4 men and 20 women; mean age 34.7; mean weight 120 kg; mean BMI 43.8 kg/m²). Data on complications, reoperations, weight, BMI, percentage of excess weight loss, and co-morbidities were collected yearly. The data were analyzed using Student’s t test and Fisher’s exact test, with P<.05 considered significant.ResultsFive patients in the LAGB group and 3 patients in the LRYGB group were lost to follow-up. No patient died. Conversion to laparotomy was performed in 1 (4.2%) of 24 LRYGB patients. Reoperations were required in 9 (40.9%) of 22 LAGB patients and in 6 (28.6%) of the 21 LRYGB patients. At 10-year follow-up, the LRYGB patients had a greater percentage of mean excess weight loss than did the LAGB patients (69±29% versus 46±27%; P = .03).ConclusionLRYGB was superior to LAGB in term of excess weight loss results (76.2% versus 46.2%) at 10 years. However, LRYGB exposes patients to higher early complication rates than LAGB (8.3% versus 0%) and potentially lethal long-term surgical complications (internal hernia and bowel obstruction rate: 4.7%).     

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a retrospective,single-center study of early perioperative outcomes at a community hospital

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the operative and early perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures performed in a community hospital setting.

Methods

The study was a chart review and analysis of the early perioperative outcomes of a total of 345 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures performed by a single surgeon in a community hospital setting from January 2011 to October 2014. Of these, 173 procedures were performed laparoscopically and 172 were performed with robotic assistance utilizing the daVinci^® surgical platform. Factors such as baseline patient characteristics, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), conversions to open procedure, complication rates, adverse events, length of stay (LOS), and return to the operating room for the two groups were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained database. Student’s t test with unequal variances was used for statistical analysis, and a p value <0.05 was used for significance.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in complication rates, EBL, or LOS between the two groups. There was a significant difference between the total operative times (135.30 ± 37.60 min for the laparoscopic procedure versus 154.84 ± 38.44 min for the robotic procedure, p < 0.05). There were no adverse intraoperative events, conversions to open procedures, leaks, strictures, returns to the operating room within 30 days, or mortalities in either group.

Conclusion

Our study, which is the first of its kind to analyze the operative and early perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures in the US community hospital setting, indicates that both are comparable in terms of safety, efficacy, and operative and early perioperative outcomes.

     

Laparoscopic versus mini-cholecystectomy: analysis of hospital costs and social costs in a prospective randomized study

The aim of the study was to calculate the hospital and social costs in relation to efficacy of clinical outcome, hospital stay and time off work in two groups of patients randomly treated with laparoscopic or mini-cholecystectomy. One hundred and eighty-one patients with simple, symptomatic gallstone disease were included in the study; of these, 9 cases were excluded because of conversion to conventional cholecystectomy. Eighty-six cases underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 86 mini-cholecystectomy. Operative time (median time: 35 minutes) and hospital stay (median stay: 3 days) were the same for both surgical procedures. The median time off work was 10 days for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 20 days for mini-cholecystectomy (P = 0.007). Hospital expenses showed a saving of 820.48 euros for each patient undergoing mini-cholecystectomy. Since laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a shorter period off work, it seems to be cheaper with a daily saving of 164.96 and 146.51 Euros per patient, according to cost/effectiveness and cost/utility analyses, respectively. Consequently, although laparoscopic cholecystectomy shows a better outcome in terms of socioeconomic aspects and patient compliance, in an attempt to rationalize hospital expenditure, we would advocate mini-cholecystectomy for those patients who do not need to return to work early.     

Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer in Japan: long-term clinical outcomes of a randomized clinical trial

Purpose

We report the long-term clinical outcomes of a randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with open DG (ODG).

Methods

Between 2005 and 2008, 63 patients with clinical T1 (cT1) gastric cancer were randomly assigned to undergo either LADG or ODG. Long-term clinical outcomes included prospective questionnaire-based symptoms and survival.

Results

Based on the responses to the prospective questionnaires, patients who underwent LADG reported greater satisfaction and were more likely to favor the procedure than those who underwent ODG. The most notable difference in symptoms was related to wound pain and diarrhea. After ODG, wound pain reduced in intensity but persisted throughout the follow-up. Surprisingly, diarrhea was more frequent after LADG than after ODG, possibly due to overeating, because symptoms elicited by overeating, such as vomiting after a meal or heartburn, were also more frequent after LADG. In terms of long-term survival, there were no cases of recurrence in either group.

Conclusions

LADG was associated with less wound pain during long-term follow-up after surgery, whereas symptoms related to overeating were common. Based on our findings and the patients’ reported satisfaction, we recommend LADG for cT1 gastric cancer as an effective procedure with excellent long-term survival.

     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized comparison

Background  

Whether laparoscopy offers a benefit over open surgery in the management of acute appendicitis or not remains a subject of controversy despite the publication of numerous randomized studies. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) with open appendectomy (OA) and to ascertain its therapeutic benefit.     

Laparoscopic approach to open gastric bypass

BACKGROUND: Gastric bypass is a successful tool in the treatment of morbid obesity. In recent years, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass has gained popularity. However, open bypass is sometimes more suitable for patients who are "superobese." Laparoscopic instrumentation can be used during an open gastric bypass to facilitate dissection, formation of the gastric pouch, and creation of the gastrojejunostomy. METHODS: We describe the use of laparoscopic ultrasonic coagulating shears for dissection during open gastric bypass. Additionally, laparoscopic gastrointestinal anastomosis and end-to-end anastomosis staplers are used for creating bowel anastomoses. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic instrumentation can be useful in the setting of open procedures. Their long handles and jaw design make them ideal for working in the depths of a superobese abdomen.     

Laparoscopic gastric bypass versus laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a comparative study of 1,200 cases

BACKGROUND: Indications for and results of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB) are still controversial, especially between Europe and the United States. The recent availability of gastric bandings in the United States made it necessary to compare the two techniques. STUDY DESIGN: We compared a series of 456 LGB to a series of 805 LAGB performed in two different institutions. Body mass index (BMI), complication rate, mortality, and excess weight loss (EWL) after 3, 6, 12, and 18 months were obtained. A Fischer's exact test and a Student t test with covariance analysis were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Results are expressed as a mean +/- standard deviation, comparing LGB with LAGB. Preoperative BMI was 49.4 +/- 8.3 kg/m(2) versus 42.2 +/- 4.9 kg/m(2) (p = 0.0001), respectively. Perioperative major complication rates were 2.0% versus 1.3% (NS), and the early postoperative major complication rates were 4.2% versus 1.7% (p = 0.02), respectively. Mortality rate was 0.4% versus 0% (NS), respectively.The global EWL was 36.3% for LGB versus 14.7% for LAGB at 3 months (p < 0.0001), 51.6% versus 21.9% at 6 months (p < 0.0001), 67.0% versus 33.3% at 12 months (p < 0.0001), and 74.6% versus 40.4% at 18 months (p < 0.0001), respectively. Longterm followup for the LAGB group showed an EWL of 47% at 2 years, 56% at 3 years, and 58% at 4 years.Patients were sorted after their preoperative BMI (30 to 40, 40 to 50, and 50 to 60 kg/m(2)). The EWL at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months was statistically superior in the LGB group, for any BMI ranges. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that LGB provides a higher EWL at 18 months, compared with LAGB, and this was true for any preoperative BMI range. It is associated with a higher early postoperative complication rate.     

Three-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass

OBJECTIVE: To analyze long-term weight loss, changes in comorbidities and quality of life, and late complications after laparoscopic and open gastric bypass. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Early results from our prospective randomized trial comparing the outcome of laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass demonstrated less postoperative pain, shorter length of hospital stay, fewer wound-related complications, and faster convalescence for patients who underwent laparoscopic gastric bypass. METHODS: Between May 1999 and March 2001, 155 morbidly obese patients were enrolled in this prospective trial, in which 79 patients were randomized to laparoscopic gastric bypass and 76 to open gastric bypass. Two patients in the laparoscopic group required conversion to open surgery; their data were analyzed within the laparoscopic group on an intention-to-treat basis. The 2 groups were well matched for body mass index, age, and gender. Outcome evaluation included weight loss, changes in comorbidities and quality of life, and late complications. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 39+/-8 months. There were no significant differences in the percent of excess body weight loss between the 2 groups at the 3-year follow-up (77% for laparoscopic versus 67% for open). The rate of improvement or resolution of comorbidities was similar between groups. Improvement in quality of life, measured by the Moorehead-Ardelt Quality of Life Questionnaire, was observed in both groups without significant differences between groups. Late complications were similar between groups except for the rate of incisional hernia, which was significantly greater after open gastric bypass (39% versus 5%, P<0.01), and the rate of cholecystectomy, which was greater after laparoscopic gastric bypass (28% versus 5%, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial with a 3-year follow-up, we found that laparoscopic gastric bypass was equally effective as open gastric bypass with respect to weight loss and improvement in comorbidities and quality of life. A major advantage at long-term follow-up for patients who underwent laparoscopic gastric bypass was the reduction in the rate of incisional hernia.     

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: 5-year results of a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: To perform a prospective, randomized comparison of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). METHODS: LAGB, using the pars flaccida technique, and standard LRYGB were performed. From January 2000 to November 2000, 51 patients (mean age 34.0 +/- 8.9 years, range 20-49) were randomly allocated to undergo either LAGB (n = 27, 5 men and 22 women, mean age 33.3 years, mean weight 120 kg, mean body mass index [BMI] 43.4 kg/m(2); percentage of excess weight loss 83.8%) or LRYGB (n = 24, 4 men and 20 women, mean age 34.7, mean weight 120 kg, mean BMI 43.8 kg/m(2), percentage of excess weight loss 83.3). Data on the operative time, complications, reoperations with hospital stay, weight, BMI, percentage of excess weight loss, and co-morbidities were collected yearly. Failure was considered a BMI of >35 at 5 years postoperatively. The data were analyzed using Student's t test and Fisher's exact test, with P <.05 considered significant. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 60 +/- 20 minutes for the LAGB group and 220 +/- 100 minutes for the LRYGB group (P <.001). One patient in the LAGB group was lost to follow-up. No patient died. Conversion to laparotomy was performed in 1 (4.2%) of 24 LRYGB patients because of a posterior leak of the gastrojejunal anastomosis. Reoperations were required in 4 (15.2%) of 26 LAGB patients, 2 because of gastric pouch dilation and 2 because of unsatisfactory weight loss. One of these patients required conversion to biliopancreatic diversion; the remaining 3 patients were on the waiting list for LRYGB. Reoperations were required in 3 (12.5%) of the 24 LRYGB patients, and each was because of a potentially lethal complication. No LAGB patient required reoperation because of an early complication. Of the 27 LAGB patients, 3 had hypertension and 1 had sleep apnea. Of the 24 LRYGB patients, 2 had hyperlipemia, 1 had hypertension, and 1 had type 2 diabetes. Five years after surgery, the diabetes, sleep apnea, and hyperlipemia had resolved. At the 5-year (range 60-66 months) follow-up visit, the LRYGB patients had significantly lower weight and BMI and a greater percentage of excess weight loss than did the LAGB patients. Weight loss failure (BMI >35 kg/m(2) at 5 yr) was observed in 9 (34.6%) of 26 LAGB patients and in 1 (4.2%) of 24 LRYGB patients (P <.001). Of the 26 patients in the LAGB group and 24 in the LRYGB group, 3 (11.5%) and 15 (62.5%) had a BMI of <30 kg/m(2), respectively (P <.001). CONCLUSION: The results of our study have shown that LRYGB results in better weight loss and a reduced number of failures compared with LAGB, despite the significantly longer operative time and life-threatening complications.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: prospective randomized trial

Although classic open surgery is simple, expeditious, and effective, it has some drawbacks, including wound sepsis, delayed recovery, operative difficulties, and possibility of unnecessary appendectomies for false appendicitis. The aim of this study was to assess the applicability and safety of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in a prospectively randomized trial. Seventy nonselective patients with suspected appendicitis were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 35, 17 male) or open appendectomy (n = 35, 15 male) and operated on an emergency basis. Operative findings, operating time, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay were compared. We found that LA is associated with a shorter hospital stay, fewer postoperative complications, and better diagnostic accuracy, and it is recommended as the procedure of choice for the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis.     

Comparison of pulmonary function and postoperative pain after laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Impairment of pulmonary function is common after upper abdominal operations. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative pulmonary function and analgesic requirements in patients undergoing either laparoscopic or open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (GBP). STUDY DESIGN: Seventy patients with a body mass index of 40 to 60 kg/m2 were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (n = 36) or open (n = 34) GBP. The two groups were similar in age, gender, body mass index, pulmonary history, and baseline pulmonary function. Pulmonary function studies were performed preoperatively and on postoperative days 1, 2, 3, and 7. Oxygen saturation and chest radiographs were performed on both groups preoperatively and on postoperative day 1. Postoperative pain was evaluated using a visual analog scale and the amount of narcotic consumed was recorded. Data are presented as mean +/- standard deviation. RESULTS: Laparoscopic GBP patients had significantly less impairment of pulmonary function than open GBP patients on the first three postoperative days (p < 0.05). By the 7th postoperative day, all pulmonary function parameters in the laparoscopic GBP group had returned to within preoperative levels, but only one parameter (peak expiratory flow) had returned to preoperative levels in the open GBP group. On the first postoperative day, laparoscopic GBP patients used less morphine than open GBP patients (46 +/- 31 mg versus 76 +/- 39 mg, respectively, p < 0.001), and visual analog scale pain scores at rest and during mobilization were lower after laparoscopic GBP than after open GBP (p < 0.05). Fewer patients after laparoscopic GBP than after open GBP developed hypoxemia (31% versus 76%, p < 0.001) and segmental atelectasis (6% versus 55%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic gastric bypass resulted in less postoperative suppression of pulmonary function, decreased pain, improved oxygenation, and less atelectasis than open gastric bypass.     

Use and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass at academic medical centers

BACKGROUND: A large outcome study of laparoscopic gastric bypass has not been done because of difficulty in differentiating between open and laparoscopic procedures in the absence of a specific ICD-9 procedural code for the laparoscopic operation. The University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) clinical database recently added a specific procedural code for laparoscopic gastric bypass. The goal of this study was to compare the use and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass at academic centers. STUDY DESIGN: Using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes, we obtained data from the UHC clinical database for all patients who underwent laparoscopic or open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for treatment of morbid obesity between 2004 and 2006 (n = 22,422). The main outcomes measures were demographics, comorbidities, length of hospital stay, 30-day readmission, morbidity, observed and expected (risk-adjusted) mortality, and costs. RESULTS: There were 16,357 patients who underwent laparoscopic gastric bypass and 6,065 patients who underwent open gastric bypass. Laparoscopic gastric bypass patients had a shorter length of hospital stay (2.7 days versus 4.0 days, p < 0.01); lower overall complications (7.4% versus 13.0%, p < 0.01); lower rates of pneumonia, venous thrombosis, leak, wound infection, and pulmonary complications; costs were also lower. The observed-to-expected in-hospital mortality ratio was similar between groups (1.0 versus 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide analysis of academic medical centers between 2004 and 2006 showed that bariatric surgery has shifted to a predominately laparoscopic approach. In addition, laparoscopic gastric bypass is as safe as open gastric bypass and is considerably associated with a lower 30-day morbidity.     

Laparoscopic versus open splenectomy: a comparative study

Laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) is gaining wide acceptance as a safe, effective alternative to open splenectomy (OS) in the treatment of hematologic disorders in adult and pediatric patients, with low conversion rates and complications. The aim of this retrospective case-control study was to compare two cohorts of patients, with similar characteristics, who underwent OS or LS in a single institution. The medical records of the initial 20 consecutive patients who underwent LS were reviewed and compared with a control group of 28 patients undergoing OS, matched for age, gender, diagnosis, splenic size and weight, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Data were collected regarding operative time, blood loss, blood transfusions, pathologic findings, accessory spleen detection, complications, ileus duration, and postoperative hospital stay. Nineteen patients underwent attempted LS. One procedure (5%) was converted to OS for uncontrolled hilar bleeding. Accessory spleens were detected in two cases in the LS group compared with four cases in the OS group (14%). Mean operative time was 165 minutes (range: 100-240 minutes) for LS and 114 minutes (75-180 minutes) for OS (P < 0.001). In the LS group a regular diet was tolerated 36 hours (range: 24-48 hours) after surgery compared with 72 hours (range: 48-96 hours) for the OS group (P < 0.001), and mean postoperative hospital stay was 4.1 days (range: 3-8 days) for LS, compared with 8.1 days (range: 5-12 days) for OS (P < 0.001). No differences were observed in blood loss, complication rates, or transfusion requirements. Compared with OS, LS requires more operative time (showing a learning curve), is comparable in blood loss, transfusion requirements, complication rates, and detection of accessory spleens and appears to be superior in terms of return of bowel function and hospital stay.