Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Single-Incision and Conventional Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity: a Meta-Analysis

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

Abstract

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SILSG) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG) in obese patients. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of these two techniques.

Methods

A meta-analysis of existing literature obtained through a systematic literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library CENTRAL databases from 2009 to 2019 was conducted.

Results

Eleven articles including 1168 patients were analyzed. Patients in the SILSG group reported greater satisfaction with cosmetic scar outcomes than those in the CLSG group (SMD = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.10 to 3.83, P = 0.00). There was no significant difference between the SILSG group and the CLSG group regarding operative time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, conversion rate, intraoperative complications, length of hospital stay, postoperative analgesia, postoperative complications, excess weight loss (EWL), and improvements in comorbidities (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Compared to CLSG, SILSG resulted in improved cosmetic satisfaction and showed no disadvantages in terms of surgical outcomes; thus, SILSG can serve as an alternative to CLSG for obese patients. Nonetheless, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with large study populations and long follow-up periods are needed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Collaboration NCDRF. Trends in adult body-mass index in 200 countries from 1975 to 2014: a pooled analysis of 1698 population-based measurement studies with 19.2 million participants. Lancet. 2016;387(10026):1377–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mingrone G, Panunzi S, De Gaetano A, et al. Bariatric-metabolic surgery versus conventional medical treatment in obese patients with type 2 diabetes: 5 year follow-up of an open-label, single-centre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386(9997):964–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Angrisani L. 2014: the year of the sleeve supremacy. Obes Surg. 2017;27(6):1626–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Saber AA, Elgamal MH, Itawi EA, et al. Single incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SILSG): a novel technique. Obes Surg. 2008;18(10):1338–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Magouliotis DE, Tasiopoulou VS, Svokos AA, et al. Single incision versus conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity: a meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018;28(6):690–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dimitrokallis N, Alexandrou A, Schizas D, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: review and a critical appraisal. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27(3):217–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mognol P, Chosidow D, Marmuse JP. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as an initial bariatric operation for high-risk patients: initial results in 10 patients. Obes Surg. 2005;15(7):1030–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Roa PE, Kaidar-Person O, Pinto D, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as treatment for morbid obesity: technique and short-term outcome. Obes Surg. 2006;16(10):1323–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Alptekin H, Yilmaz H, Acar F, et al. Incisional hernia rate may increase after single-port cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(8):731–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;20(5):13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Delgado S, Ibarzabal A, Adelsdorfer C, et al. Transumbilical single-port sleeve gastrectomy: initial experience and comparative study. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(5):1247–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gomberawalla A, Salamat A, Lutfi R. Outcome analysis of single incision vs traditional multiport sleeve gastrectomy: a matched cohort study. Obes Surg. 2014;24(11):1870–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lakdawala M, Agarwal A, Dhar S, et al. Single-incision sleeve gastrectomy versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. a 2-year comparative analysis of 600 patients. Obes Surg. 2015;25(4):607–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Morales-Conde S, Del Agua IA, Moreno AB, et al. Postoperative pain after conventional laparoscopic versus single-port sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled pilot study. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13(4):608–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Muir KB, Rice WV. Weight-loss outcomes of SPIDER((R)) sleeve gastrectomy at 6 months compared to traditional laparoscopic technique. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(5):2043–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nguyen NT, Smith BR, Reavis KM, et al. Strategic laparoscopic surgery for improved cosmesis in general and bariatric surgery: analysis of initial 127 cases. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(4):355–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Park K, Afthinos JN, Lee D, et al. Single port sleeve gastrectomy: strategic use of technology to re-establish fundamental tenets of multiport laparoscopy. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012;8(4):450–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Porta A, Aiolfi A, Musolino C, et al. Prospective comparison and quality of life for single-incision and conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in a series of morbidly obese patients. Obes Surg. 2017;27(3):681–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rogula T, Daigle C, Dua M, et al. Laparoscopic bariatric surgery can be performed through a single incision: a comparative study. Obes Surg. 2014;24(7):1102–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Saber AA, El-Ghazaly TH, Dewoolkar AV, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: technical considerations and strategic modifications. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2010;6(6):658–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sucher R, Resch T, Mohr E, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus multiport laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: analysis of 80 cases in a single center. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014;24(2):83–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhu JF. Which term is better: SILS, SPA, LESS, E-NOTES, or TUES? Surg Endosc. 2009;23(5):1164–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ponsky JL, Rosen MJ, Poulose BK. NOTES: of caution. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(7):1561–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Moreno-Sanz C, Morandeira-Rivas A, Sedano-Vizcaino C, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11:248–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Saber AA, Meslemani AM, Davis R, et al. Safety zones for anterior abdominal wall entry during laparoscopy: a CT scan mapping of epigastric vessels. Ann Surg. 2004;239:182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zacharoulis D, Sioka E, Papamargaritis D, et al. Influence of the learning curve on safety and efficiency of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg. 2012;22(3):411–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pourcher G, Di Giuro G, Lafosse T, et al. Routine single-port sleeve gastrectomy: a study of 60 consecutive patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;9(3):385–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pourcher G, De Filippo G, Ferretti S, et al. Short-term results of single-port sleeve gastrectomy in adolescents with severe obesity. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(1):65–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Farias C, Fernandez JI, Ovalle C, et al. Transumbilical sleeve gastrectomy with an accessory lateral port: surgical results in 237 patients and 1-year follow-up. Obes Surg. 2013;23(3):325–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Maluenda F, Leon J, Csendes A, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: initial experience in 20 patients and 2-year follow-up. Eur Surg. 2014;46:32–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN, et al. Prospective randomized comparative study of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg. 2011;202(3):254–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. O'Hara DA, Fragen RJ, Kinzer M, et al. Ketorolac tromethamine as compared with morphine sulfate for treatment of postoperative pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1987;41(5):556–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Gordon DB, Stevenson KK, Griffie J, et al. Opioid equianalgesic calculations. J Palliat Med. 1999;2(2):209–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gaillard M, Tranchart H, Lainas P, et al. Single-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a routine procedure in 1000 patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12(7):1270–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fernandez JI, Farias CO, Ovalle CL, et al. Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg. 2015;25(3):430–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. O'Kane M, Parretti HM, Hughes CA, et al. Guidelines for the follow-up of patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Clin Obes. 2016;6(3):210–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Clinical Issues Committee of the American Society for M, Bariatric S. Updated position statement on sleeve gastrectomy as a bariatric procedure. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2010;6(1):1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by research grants from the Startup Fund for Scientific Research of Fujian Medical University (2018QH1068).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, 20 Chazhong Road, Fuzhou, 350005, China

    Si-Da Sun, Jun-Feng Zhou, Zhi-Sheng Wang, Tian-Hong Cai, Long-Kai Huang, Jian-Sheng Chen, Chang-Qing Lin, Jia-Xing Wang & Qing-Liang He

  2. Department of General Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, 20 Chazhong Road, Fuzhou, 350005, China

    Ping-Ping Wu

Authors
  1. Si-Da Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ping-Ping Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jun-Feng Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhi-Sheng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tian-Hong Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Long-Kai Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jian-Sheng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Chang-Qing Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jia-Xing Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Qing-Liang He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qing-Liang He.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies involving human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Statement Informed Consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sun, SD., Wu, PP., Zhou, JF. et al. Comparison of Single-Incision and Conventional Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity: a Meta-Analysis. OBES SURG 30, 2186–2198 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-020-04437-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-020-04437-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation