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

  • Vincenzo Consalvo
  • Vincenzo Salsano
  • Gerardo Sarno
  • Iphigenie Chaze
Original Contributions

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.

Keywords

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy Three-port sleeve gastrectomy Three-trocar sleeve gastrectomy Complication of sleeve gastrectomy Reduced port sleeve gastrectomy Three-trocar sleeve gastrectomy 

References

  1. 1.
    Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E, et al. Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jama. 2004;292:1724–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arterburn DE, Olsen MK, Smith VA. Association between bariatric surgery and long-term survival. Jama. 2015;313:62–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Azagury DE, Morton JM. Bariatric surgery: overview of procedures and outcomes. Endocrinol Metab Clin N am. 2016 Sep;45(3):647–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Inaki N. Reduced port laparoscopic gastrectomy: a review, techniques, and perspective. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2015;8(1):1–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nedelcu M, Eddbali I, Noel P. Three-port sleeve gastrectomy: complete posterior approach. SurgObesRelat dis. 2016;12(4):925–7.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università degli Studi di SalernoFiscianoItaly
  2. 2.Clinique Clementville MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.Clinique du Parc MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  4. 4.Azienda ospedaliero universitaria san Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d’AragonaSalernoItaly
  5. 5.Department of GastroenterologyClinique Clementville MontpellierMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations