Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Three-Trocar Sleeve Gastrectomy vs Standard Five-Trocar Technique: a Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Obesity Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Bariatric surgery is a treatment for morbid obesity. Different surgical procedures have been described in order to obtain excess weight loss (EWL), but currently laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is the most commonly performed procedure throughout the world. Reducing abdominal wall trauma and increasing the aesthetic result are important goals for all bariatric surgeons. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial in order to assess if the three-trocar sleeve gastrectomy can be safely carried out or should be abandoned.

Materials and Methods

From September 2016 to February 2017, 90 patients were enrolled in our trial. Each patients was evaluated by a multidisciplinary team before surgery. Two groups were created after application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was to define the features of early post-operative complications of patients in group 1 (the three-trocar technique—the experimental group) compared to group 2 (five-trocar technique—the control group). The secondary endpoints were to evaluate any differences between the two groups concerning post-operative pain and patients’ satisfaction with the aesthetic results.

Results

There was no difference between the two groups concerning age, sex distribution, weight, and BMI. The rate of co-morbidities was similar in both groups. Operative time was inferior in the control group, but patient satisfaction was better in the three-trocar sleeve gastrectomy group.

Conclusions

The three-trocar sleeve gastrectomy can be safely carried out with a modest increase in operative time, without additional early surgical complications and with a greater patient aesthetic satisfaction.

Trial Registration

researchregistry2386.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E, et al. Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jama. 2004;292:1724–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Arterburn DE, Olsen MK, Smith VA. Association between bariatric surgery and long-term survival. Jama. 2015;313:62–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Booth HP, Khan O, Fildes A. Changing epidemiology of bariatric surgery in the UK: cohort study using primary care electronic health records. Obes Surg. 2016;26:1900–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Regan JP, Inabnet WB, Gagner M, et al. Early experience with two-stage laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as an alternative in the super-super obese patient. Obes Surg. 2003;13:861–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Czernichow S, Paita M, Nocca D, et al. Current challenges in providing bariatric surgery in France. A nationwide study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(49):e5314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Azagury DE, Morton JM. Bariatric surgery: overview of procedures and outcomes. Endocrinol Metab Clin N am. 2016 Sep;45(3):647–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Corcelles R, Boules M, Froylich D, et al. Laparoscopic three-port sleeve gastrectomy: a single institution case series. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech a. 2016;26(5):361–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dunford G, Philip S, Kole K. Three-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a novel technical modification. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26(6):e174–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Inaki N. Reduced port laparoscopic gastrectomy: a review, techniques, and perspective. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2015;8(1):1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nedelcu M, Eddbali I, Noel P. Three-port sleeve gastrectomy: complete posterior approach. SurgObesRelat dis. 2016;12(4):925–7.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern med. 2013;158(3):200–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Csendes A, Burdiles P, Burgos AM, et al. Conservative management of anastomotic leaks after 557 open gastric bypasses. Obes Surg. 2005;15:1252–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosenthal RJ, Diaz AA, Arvidsson D, et al. International sleeve gastrectomy expert panel consensus Statement: best practice guidelines based on experience of > 12,000 cases. Surg Obes Relat dis. 2012;8:8–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Università degli Studi di Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, Fisciano, SA, Italy

    Vincenzo Consalvo

  2. Clinique Clementville Montpellier, 25 Rue de Clementville, Montpellier, France

    Vincenzo Salsano

  3. Clinique du Parc Montpellier, 50 Rue Emile Combes, Montpellier, France

    Vincenzo Salsano & Iphigenie Chaze

  4. Azienda ospedaliero universitaria san Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d’Aragona, Via San Leonardo, Salerno, Italy

    Gerardo Sarno

  5. Department of Gastroenterology, Clinique Clementville Montpellier, 25 Rue de Clementville, Montpellier, France

    Iphigenie Chaze

Authors
  1. Vincenzo Consalvo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincenzo Salsano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerardo Sarno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Iphigenie Chaze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincenzo Consalvo.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Consalvo, V., Salsano, V., Sarno, G. et al. Three-Trocar Sleeve Gastrectomy vs Standard Five-Trocar Technique: a Randomized Controlled Trial. OBES SURG 27, 3142–3148 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-017-2760-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-017-2760-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation