胆胰分流并十二指肠转位术治疗胃袖状切除术后复胖个案报告并文献复习

目的:探讨胆胰分流并十二指肠转位术作为胃袖状切除术后复胖修正手术的可行性。方法:女性患者,重度肥胖,身体质量指数(BMI)为42.3 kg/m^2,合并2型糖尿病,应用胰岛素治疗血糖控制不佳,糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)10.5%;首次接受腹腔镜胃袖状切除术,术后1年BMI降至32.4 kg/m^2,HbA1c 8.9%;术后3年,BMI反弹至40.2 kg/m^2,HbA1c为10%。再次接受标准的胆胰分流并十二指肠转位术,即食物肠袢150 cm、共同肠袢100 cm。结果:胆胰分流并十二指肠转位术术后3个月,BMI 39.9 kg/m^2,HbA1c 8.9%,恢复正常进食,排便次数3~4次/d,质软,无特殊不适。结论:胆胰分流并十二指肠转位术作为腹腔镜胃袖状切除术的术后修正手术,对于体重反弹、血糖增高的治疗效果优异,且不影响患者进食习惯,但术后营养并发症较多见,需密切关注。     

腹腔镜胃底折叠术联合胃袖状切除术治疗肥胖合并胃食管反流病北大核心CSCD

目的 观察腹腔镜胃底折叠术联合胃袖状切除术治疗肥胖合并胃食管反流病的疗效.方法 回顾性分析2014年2-10月新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院微创外科接受腹腔镜胃底折叠术联合袖状胃切除术治疗的5例肥胖合并胃食管反流病患者的临床资料.结果 全组病例均顺利完成腹腔镜食管裂孔疝缝合修补术＋保留部分鱼鳍状胃底的胃袖状切除术＋不同类型胃底折叠术,1例联合行腹腔镜胆囊切除术,无l例中转开腹.平均手术时间（157±27） min,平均术后住院（5.7±1.5）d.术后随访3～6个月,术后1、3、6个月平均减重分别为（13.1±2.7） kg、（25.7±3.8） kg、（37.3±4.1） kg,多余体重减少百分比分别为24.7％±3.3％、47.3％±6.3％、65.8％±8.7％.术后5例患者胃食管反流症状均完全缓解,3例合并糖耐量异常和高血压的患者术后3个月血糖和血压均恢复正常.无严重并发症发生.结论 腹腔镜胃底折叠术联合胃袖状切除术可能成为治疗肥胖合并胃食管反流病或食管裂孔疝的新手术方法之一.     

单孔腹腔镜胃袖状切除术疗效的初步研究

目的 初步研究单孔腹腔镜胃袖状切除术(single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, SILSG)在轻中度肥胖病人的治疗结果。方法 回顾性收集上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院2019年8月至2021年2月行腹腔镜胃袖状切除术的266例病人临床资料,纳入接受SILSG的轻中度肥胖病人20例(SILSG组)和接受传统三孔腹腔镜胃袖状切除术(three-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, TPLSG)的轻中度肥胖病人47例(TPLSG组)。对比两组病人术后住院时间、手术时间、术中出血量、手术相关并发症发生情况,以评估手术安全性;对比两组病人术后12个月的总体重减轻百分比、体质量指数、颈围、胸围、腰围和臀围的改变以及肥胖相关代谢疾病的改善情况,评估减重疗效;对比两种术式的术后疼痛评分和美观满意度。结果 SILSG组的术后疼痛数字评分(NRS)优于TPLSG组[(1.5±0.3)分比(2.1±0.6)分,P<0.05],其美观满意比例也优于TPLSG组[90.0%比63.8%,P<0.05]。...     

缝合切缘预防袖状胃切除术并发症的体会

目的:探讨预防袖状胃切除术后并发症的措施。方法:2010年12月至2015年6月完成袖状胃切除术或袖状胃切除为基础的空肠旁路术共261例。胃内以36Fr球囊胃管支撑,距幽门2~5 cm处开始切割胃大弯,胃窦处选择绿钉仓,其余部位选用蓝钉仓。自第一例袖状胃切除术开始,在切割完成后选用3-0薇乔线全层缝合加强切缘。术后常规不放引流管、不置胃管,术后第1天开始进食流质。统计每例患者完成袖状胃切除术的时间及术后并发症等情况。结果:261例患者临床资料完整,均完成腹腔镜手术,其中男88例(33.7%),女173例(66.3%);男性BMI 41.8 kg/m~2,女性36.1 kg/m~2,两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。男性组手术时间平均(101.94±31.05)min,女性组平均(95.49±26.63)min,两组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。101例患者BMI≥40 kg/m~2,手术时间平均(96.15±22.7)min,160例患者BMI40 kg/m~`2,手术时间平均(98.63±31.34)min,两者差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。患者术后随访超过6个月,平均住院(6.7±2.5)d,无死亡病例及再手术、漏、梗阻、大出血发生,术后30 d因呕吐再入院3例,术后便血1例,均保守治愈出院。结论:常规加强缝合切缘可预防袖状胃切除术后漏、出血等并发症的发生。     

腹腔镜袖状胃切除术后胃漏2例诊疗体会

目的:探讨腹腔镜袖状胃切除术后胃漏的发生原因及治疗方法。方法:回顾分析2015年5月至2018年12月接受LSG术后发生胃漏的2例患者的临床资料。结果:病例1男性,33岁,BMI 34.68 kg/m~2,术前诊断为原发性肥胖症及胃间质瘤,行腹腔镜袖状胃切除术+腹腔镜胃间质瘤切除术,为第15例LSG患者,术后第7天发生胃漏;病例2为女性,28岁,BMI 53.65 kg/m~2,术前诊断为代谢综合征及食管裂孔疝,行腹腔镜袖状胃切除术+食管裂孔疝修补术,为第30例LSG患者,术后第8天患者出院,第22天发生胃漏。采用三腔喂养管,同时行胃肠减压、胃瘘口冲洗及肠内营养,并予以黎氏管腹腔冲洗引流,2例胃漏患者分别于治疗后63 d及17 d复查上消化道造影,提示治愈。结论:应用三腔喂养管行胃瘘口冲洗及肠内营养、黎氏管腹腔持续冲洗引流,可有效控制腹腔感染,提高胃漏治愈率,操作简单、易行,效果确切、安全,值得临床推广。     

腹腔镜胃袖状切除术的技术细节

<正>腹腔镜胃袖状切除(laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,LSG)是目前常用减重手术技术。由于其相对胃旁路术简单、安全,术后营养问题较少,且其减重与代谢改善效果不亚于胃旁路术,近年得以广泛应用,在世界范围内约50%减重手术方式为腹腔镜胃袖状切除术[1-2]。为了规范的开展此种手术,获得理想减重效果,减少并发症发生机会,本文结合     

腹腔镜胃底折叠抗反流术联合胃袖状切除术动物实验研究

目的 观察腹腔镜胃底折叠抗反流手术联合胃袖状切除术对动物模型的可行性和安全性。方法 2013年12月至2014年5月在柯惠上海临床培训中心及奥林巴斯上海实验室对8只小猪行腹腔镜下保留部分胃底的胃袖状切除术联合食管裂孔疝修补术及不同类型胃底折叠术（包括Nissen、Toupet、Dor胃底折叠术）。记录术中情况、手术步骤、技术难点及注意事项等。结果 成功完成小猪腹腔镜胃袖状切除术和食管裂孔疝缝合修补术8次,不同类型胃底折叠术24次,即Nissen胃底折叠术、Toupet胃底折叠及Dor胃底前折叠术各8次。无一例中转开腹,所有实验动物均在手术中生命体征保持平稳,平均手术时间为（120.2±13.7）min,出血量为5~80（35.8±11.1）mL。术中1只发生肝损伤出血,其余均未发生脏器损伤及吻合口漏。手术时间随着训练次数明显缩短。
结论 腹腔镜胃底折叠抗反流手术联合胃袖状切除术对小猪动物模型安全可行,可为临床医师提供极佳训练机会,有助于缩短学习曲线,可能成为治疗肥胖合并胃食管反流病或食管裂孔疝的新型抗反流手术方法。     

腹腔镜胃袖状切除术后残胃漏的诊治

<正>腹腔镜胃袖状切除术(laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,LSG)由于操作相对简单、学习曲线短、疗效确切等优点,在世界范围内尤其是在亚洲受到广大外科医生和肥胖患者的欢迎,开展数量急剧上升[1,2]。残胃漏是其术后严重并发症,Deitel[3]与Rosethal[4]分别对19 605例和12 799例LSG进行分析,LSG术后残胃漏发生率约为1.1%~1.8%,而     

腹腔镜胃袖状切除术近期并发症与处理对策

腹腔镜胃袖状切除术由于技术相对简单、安全，并具有很好地减重与改善代谢效果，成为目前最常见的减重手术术式。美国胃袖状切除占所有减重手术方式的61.4%，而国内该手术比例高达95%。该手术最常见的近期并发症包括胃漏、出血及术后呕吐。目前减重手术在全国范围内逐渐普遍开展，充分认识及很好地处理这些并发症，注重细节、规范操作，对于做好腹腔镜胃袖状切除术，避免手术并发症发生，保证手术安全具有重要意义。     

腹腔镜胃袖状切除对多囊卵巢综合征生殖内分泌功能改善的作用

目的：探讨腹腔镜胃袖状切除术改善多囊卵巢综合征（ polycystic ovary syndrome,PCOS）生殖内分泌失调的可行性及临床疗效。方法2012年2月～2014年2月,对11例伴有肥胖的PCOS患者行腹腔镜胃袖状切除术,观察月经周期、生殖内分泌及体重等的变化。结果11例均成功完成腹腔镜胃袖状切除术,10例（10／11）术后3个月内月经恢复正常周期,其中6例（6／6）术前稀发排卵的患者均恢复正常排卵,4例术前高雄激素血症患者术后3个月雄激素水平均恢复到正常范围,4例（4／7）多毛患者术后3～6个月Ferriman-Gallwey多毛评分降至5分以下。术后随访3～24个月,BMI下降4．1～7．6,（5．3±1．5）。结论腹腔镜胃袖状切除术能有效改善肥胖的PCOS患者的临床症状,术后短时间内月经恢复,不排卵、高雄激素血症改善。     

Revised sleeve gastrectomy: another option for weight loss failure after sleeve gastrectomy

Introduction

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is becoming a very common bariatric procedure, based on several advantages it carries over more complex bariatric procedures such as gastric bypass or duodenal switch (DS), and a better quality of life over gastric banding. However, in the long-term follow-up, weight loss failure and intractable severe reflux after primary LSG can necessitate further surgical interventions, and revisional sleeve gastrectomy (ReSG) can represent an option to correct these.

Methods

From October 2008 to June 2013, 36 patients underwent an ReSG for progressive weight regain, insufficient weight, or severe gastroesophageal reflux in ‘La Casamance’ Private Hospital. All patients with weight loss failure after primary LSG underwent radiological evaluation. If Gastrografin swallow showed a huge unresected fundus or an upper gastric pouch dilatation, or if the computed tomography (CT) scan volumetry revealed a gastric tube superior to 250 cc, ReSG was proposed.

Results

Thirty-six patients (34 women, two men; mean age 41.3 years) with a body mass index (BMI) of 39.9 underwent ReSG. Thirteen patients (36.1 %) had their original LSG surgery performed at another hospital and were referred to us for weight loss failure. Twenty-four patients (66.6 %) out of 36 had a history of gastric banding with weight loss failure. Thirteen patients (36.1 %) were super-obese (BMI > 50) before primary LSG. The LSG was realized for patients with morbid obesity with a mean BMI of 47.1 (range 35.4–77.9). The mean interval time from the primary LSG to ReSG was 34.5 months (range 9–67 months). The indication for ReSG was insufficient weight loss for 19 patients (52.8 %), weight regain for 15 patients (41.7 %), and 2 patients underwent ReSG for invalidating gastroesophageal reflux disease. In 24 cases the Gastrografin swallow results were interpreted as primary dilatation, and in the remaining 12 cases results were interpreted as secondary dilatation. The CT scan volumetry was realized in 21 cases, and it has revealed a mean gastric volume of 387.8 cc (range 275–555 cc). All 36 cases were completed by laparoscopy with no intraoperative incidents. The mean operative time was 43 min (range 29–70 min), and the mean hospital stay was 3.9 days (range 3–16 days). One perigastric hematoma was recorded. The mean BMI decreased to 29.2 (range 20.24–37.5); the mean percentage of excess weight loss was 58.5 % (±25.3) (p < 0.0004) for a mean follow-up of 20 months (range 6–56 months).

Conclusions

The ReSG may be a valid option for failure of primary LSG for both primary or secondary dilatation. Long-term results of ReSG are awaited to prove efficiency. Further prospective clinical trials are required to compare the outcomes of ReSG with those of Roux en Y Gastric Bypass or DS for weight loss failure after LSG.     

Symptomatic gallstones after sleeve gastrectomy

Background

Cholelithiasis is a common complication after bariatric surgery. Pure restrictive procedures such as sleeve gastrectomy and gastric banding theoretically should result in less gallstone formation because the food continues to follow the normal gastrointestinal transit, maintaining the enteric–endocrine reflex intact. To the authors’ knowledge, the literature has no studies that analyze the incidence of gallstone formation after sleeve gastrectomy. This study aimed to compare the rates of symptomatic gallstones between laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

Methods

A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent laparoscopic RYGBP and SG between 2004 and 2006 was performed. The patients with previous cholecystectomy, known gallstones with or without concomitant cholecystectomy, and previous weight-reduction operations were excluded from the analysis. The outcome measures were the numbers of patients who had experienced symptomatic and complicated gallstones. Using Cox regression analysis, comparisons was made between the patients with laparoscopic RYGBP (group A) and those with laparoscopic SG (group B).

Results

Groups A excluded 174 (26%) of 670 patients, and group B excluded 27 (34.2%) of 79 patients. The patients in group A had a significantly higher preoperative body mass index (BMI) than those in group B. Additionally, more group A than group B patients had a BMI exceeding 45 and more than a 25% loss of original weight. No significant difference in the development of symptomatic (8.7% vs. 3.8%; p = 0.296) or complicated (1.8% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.956) gallstones was noted between the two groups

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in symptomatic or complicated gallstone disease between the patients treated with laparoscopic SG and those treated with laparoscopic RYGBP. Routine prophylactic cholecystectomy should not be recommended for weight reduction during laparoscopic SG.     

Complications after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has recently become a feasible option in the management of morbid obesity. The objective of this study was to examine the morbidity and mortality arising from LSG as a primary procedure for weight loss. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 164 patients who underwent LSG from 2004 to 2007. Patients underwent LSG as a primary procedure or as revisional bariatric surgery. The short-term morbidity and mortality were examined. RESULTS: One-stage LSG was performed in 148 patients. The major complication rate was 2.9% (4 of 149), including 1 leak (0.7%) and 1 case of hemorrhage (0.7%)-each requiring reoperation-1 case of postoperative abscess (0.7%), and 1 case of sleeve stricture that required endoscopic dilation (0.7%). One late complication of choledocholithiasis and bile duct stricture required a Whipple procedure. LSG was used as revisional surgery in 16 patients (9%); of these, 13 underwent LSG after complications related to laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, 1 underwent LSG after aborted laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and 2 underwent LSG after failed jejunoileal bypass. One of these patients developed a leak and an abscess (7.1%) requiring reoperation. One case was aborted, and 2 cases were converted to an open procedure secondary to dense adhesions. No patient died in either group. All but 3 cases were completed laparoscopically (98%). CONCLUSION: LSG is a relatively safe surgical option for weight loss as a primary procedure and as a primary step before a secondary nonbariatric procedure in high-risk patients.     

Gastro-colo-diaphragmatic fistula after sleeve gastrectomy

IntroductionPostsleeve gastrectomy fistula is a serious complication, and its management remains quite challenging. The clinical presentation of chronic fistula after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) varies widely and depends on the type of fistula. Management requires a multidisciplinary approach and patient cooperation.Case presentationWe present a case of a 41-year-old woman with a body mass index (BMI) of 46 kg/m² who initially underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in our hospital. Later, she developed a gastro-colo-diaphragmatic fistula (GCD), which was successfully treated using an endolaparoscopic approach. Follow-up imaging and endoscopy showed complete healing of the fistula, as well as a marked clinical improvement of the patient.DiscussionGastro-colo-diaphragmatic fistula following sleeve gastrectomy is an extremely rare complication. This is the first case of a GCD fistula after sleeve gastrectomy that has been reported in the literature.ConclusionOne staged endolaparoscopic management was successful approach in our case and can be considered for complex gastric fistula following sleeve gastrectomy.     

An update on sleeve gastrectomy

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has emerged as the first step of a two staged operation in biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (DS) or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) for superobese high-risk patients. Due to the good short-term outcomes in weight loss and resolution of comorbidities and its technical simplicity, LSG has been increasingly applied as a definitive operation for morbidly obese patients. As LSG can be considered easier and faster to perform compared to LRYGB, it could become the procedure of choice in treating morbid obesity providing that long-term results of LSG were comparable with LRYGB regarding weight loss, the resolution of comorbidities and the quality of life improvement. A PubMed literature search was done, identifying over 2000 abstracts. Of these studies 74 original articles were selected as relevant studies for the topic and a secondary analysis. The operation is poorly standardized. There is no general agreement regarding the number of trocars used, the distance from pylorus to start the resection, bougie size, or staple line reinforcement among bariatric surgeons. The mechanisms by which LSG induces favourable metabolic changes and weight loss are not yet completely understood. As obesity is a lifelong disease, longer term comparative effectiveness data are most critical, and are yet to be determined. There is an obvious need for methodologically sound randomized studies concerning long-term results of LSG as a stand-alone operation compared to LRYGB and the effects on comorbidities of obesity. In conclusion, the quantity, quality, and consistency of evidence concerning LSG for obesity is low. Most of the current evidence comes from poorly designed nonrandomized controlled trials and case series and therefore, there is not yet enough evidence supporting the recommendation of LSG as a definitive, stand-alone procedure for morbid obesity.