Three-Trocar Sleeve Gastrectomy vs Standard Five-Trocar Technique: a Randomized Controlled Trial
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy Three-port sleeve gastrectomy Three-trocar sleeve gastrectomy Complication of sleeve gastrectomy Reduced port sleeve gastrectomy Three-trocar sleeve gastrectomy
- 10.Nedelcu M, Eddbali I, Noel P. Three-port sleeve gastrectomy: complete posterior approach. SurgObesRelat dis. 2016;12(4):925–7.Google Scholar