, Volume 27, Issue 8, pp 2768-2774
Date: 27 Feb 2013

Comparison of short-term outcomes between laparoscopic greater curvature plication and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic greater curvature plication (LGCP) is an emerging restrictive bariatric procedure that successfully reduces the gastric volume by plication of the gastric greater curvature. The aim of this prospective nonrandomized study was to compare short-term outcomes and associated complications between LGCP and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

Methods

From January 2011 to November 2011, a total of 39 patients were allocated to undergo either LGCP (n = 19) or LSG (n = 20). Data on the operative time, complications, hospital stay, overall cost of LSG and LGCP, body mass index loss (BMIL), percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), loss of appetite and improvement of comorbidities were collected during the follow-up examinations.

Results

All procedures were completed laparoscopically. The mean operative time was 95.0 ± 17.4 minutes for the LGCP group and 85.5 ± 18.4 minutes for the LSG group (P = 0.107). No patient required reoperation due to an early complication. One patient in the LSG group was readmitted because of gastric stenosis. The mean hospital stay was 4.2 ± 1.9 days in the LGCP group and 3.9 ± 1.7 days in the LSG group (P = 0.595). The total cost of LSG was $7,826 ± 537 compared to LGCP ($3,358 ± 264) (P < 0.001). One year after surgery, the mean %EWL was 58.8 ± 16.7 % (n = 11) in the LGCP group and 80.0 ± 26.8 % (n = 11) in the LSG group (P = 0.038). Loss of feeling of hunger was reported in 27.3 % LGCP patients and 72.7 % LSG patients (P = 0.033) at 1 year after surgery. The comorbidities, including diabetes, sleep apnea and hypertension, were markedly improved in both groups 6 months after surgery.

Conclusions

The short-term outcomes of our study demonstrate that compared with LSG, LGCP is inferior as a restrictive procedure for weight loss, despite its significantly smaller cost. Longer follow-up and prospective comparative trials are needed to confirm the long-term outcomes of this novel procedure and make definitive conclusions.