Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetic-Assisted Reduced-Port Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Comparative Study

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:
Obesity Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Sleeve gastrectomy is one of the most popular bariatric surgeries. With the advent of new technologies, a reduced-port approach assisted by magnets for sleeve gastrectomy (RPSG-MA) has been developed. The aim of our study is to compare the short-term results of RPSG-MA vs conventional laparoscopic SG (CLSG).

Methods

A comparative study was performed. We compared two groups who underwent RPSG-MA (n=150) and CLSG (n=135) between January 2020 and January 2022.

Results

Both groups were similar in body mass index, age, sex, and type of comorbidities. The operative time was similar in both groups (RPSG-MA, 52.5 min vs CLSG, 52.9 min; p = 0.829). Length of hospital (1.07 days) stay was significantly shorter in the RPSG-MA group (p = 0.00) than in the CLSG group (1.51 days). There were no conversions to open surgery in any patient or any fatal event. Complications encountered were similar in both groups postoperative. There were minor adverse events directly related to the magnetic device in 3 cases, these being mild hepatic lacerations, resolved with hemostatic measures.

Conclusion

The magnet-assisted reduced-port gastric sleeve compared to the conventional technique has proven to be safe, technically feasible and with multiple benefits.

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

References

  1. Brown W, Know L, Shikora S, et al. Sixth IFSO Global Registry Report 2021. Dendrite Clinical Systems Ltd, Henley-on-Thames, RG9 1AY. 2021;ISBN 978-1-9160207-8-8.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Salminen P, Helmiö M, Ovaska J, et al. Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs laparoscopic roux-en-y gastric bypass on weight loss at 5 years among patients with morbid obesity the SLEEVEPASS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(3):241–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Grönroos S, Helmiö M, Juuti A, et al. Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss and quality of life at 7 years in patients with morbid obesity: the SLEEVEPASS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(2):137–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Peterli R, Wölnerhanssen BK, Peters T, et al. Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs laparoscopic roux-en-y gastric bypass on weight loss in patients with morbid obesity the SM-BOSS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(3):255–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Varela JE. Single-site laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: preclinical use of a novel multi-access port device. Surg Innov. 2009;16(3):207–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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. 2018;28(6):690–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Khidir N, Gagner M, El Matbouly M, et al. Single-port sleeve gastrectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: 5-year follow-up of weight loss, comorbidity resolution, and cost. Surg Innov. 2020;27(3):265–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Domínguez G. Colecistectomía con un trócar asistida por imanes de neodimio. Reporte de un caso. Asociación Mexicana de Cirugía Endoscópica. 2007;8(4):172–6.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Borjas G, Sánchez N, Urdaneta A, et al. Single-port magnetic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy. Med Case Rep Study Protoc. 2021;2(12):e0188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Feustel H, Hennig G, Filler D, et al. Continent colostomy through magnetic closure in animal experiments on dogs. Langenbecks Arch Chir. 1975:337–40.

  11. Steinberg RL, Johnson BA, Meskawi M, et al. Magnet-assisted robotic prostatectomy using the da Vinci SP Robot: an initial case series. J Endourol. 2019;33(10):829–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Morales-Conde S, Dominguez G, Gomez JC, et al. Magnetic-assisted single-port sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Innov. 2013;20(4)

  13. Borjas G, Sánchez N, Urdaneta A, et al. Magnetic device in reduced port and single port bariatric surgery: first 170 cases experience. Cir Esp. 2021;S0009-739X(21):00251–7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Luengas R, Galindo J, Castro M, et al. First prospective clinical trial of reduced incision bariatric procedures using magnetic liver retraction. Surg Obes Rel Dis. 2020:1–6.

  15. Park Y, Park YS, Lee S, et al. Safety and effectiveness of reduced-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in Asian morbidly obese patients. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1)

  16. Tranchart H, Rebibo L, Gaillard M, et al. Short-term outcomes of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a propensity score matched analysis. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(9):3978–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mauriello C, Chouillard E, d'alessandro A, et al. Retrospective comparison of single-port sleeve gastrectomy versus three-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a propensity score adjustment analysis. Obes Surg. 2018;28(7):2105–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lo C, Latin L, Fariñas Á, et al. Does single-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy result in improved short-term perioperative outcomes compared to conventional multi-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy? Int J Surg. 2015;1(22):67–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Anderson DJ. Surgical site infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25(1):135–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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  PubMed  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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Consalvo V, Salsano V, Sarno G, et al. Three-trocar sleeve gastrectomy vs standard five-trocar technique: a randomized controlled trial. Obes Surg. 2017;27(12):3142–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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. 2020;30(6):2186–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unidad Internacional de Cirugía Bariátrica y Robotica – Clínica “La Sagrada Familia”, Prolongación vial Amparo, Las Lomas con avenida, Maracaibo, 63, Venezuela

    Guillermo Borjas, Nestor Sánchez, Ali Urdaneta, Andres Maldonado & Eduardo Ramos

Authors
  1. Guillermo Borjas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nestor Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Urdaneta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andres Maldonado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eduardo Ramos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guillermo Borjas.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Ethics Committee of the Centro Clinico La Sagrada Familia approved the study

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Key Points

• Magnetic surgery is a current field of development in bariatric surgery.

• Multiple benefits of magnetic surgery have been described, including less pain and lower infection rates.

• Magnetic-assisted reduced-port sleeve gastrectomy is comparable to the conventional technique.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borjas, G., Sánchez, N., Urdaneta, A. et al. Magnetic-Assisted Reduced-Port Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Comparative Study. OBES SURG 33, 2261–2265 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-023-06628-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-023-06628-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation