Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with 27 versus 39 Fr bougie calibration: a randomized controlled trial

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become a widely used primary bariatric surgery. As this is a restrictive procedure, calibrating bougie size is assumed to impact on both morbidity and weight loss. However, no prospective studies have confirmed this hypothesis. The objective of this trial was to compare LSG outcomes using different calibrating bougie diameters.

Materials and methods

A randomized controlled trial: 126 patients undergoing LSG were randomized to either a 27-Fr (group A) or a 39-Fr (group B) calibrating bougie. Inclusion criteria were BMI 40–50 kg/m2, aged 20–70 and absence of prior gastric surgery. All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. Sample size was calculated to detect a six-point difference in percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at 1 year after surgery, considering an α error = 0.05 and a β error = 0.2. The volume of resected stomach, morbidity and weight loss at 6 months and at 1 year after surgery were analyzed.

Results

Groups (group A n = 62, group B n = 64) were similar in BMI (44.3 vs. 43.5), aged (41.9 vs. 42.2) and female percentage (87.1 vs. 84.3 %). A 1-year follow-up was achieved in 90.1 and 87.1 %, respectively. Two major complications occurred, one leak in each group (1.6 %). The volume of resected stomach was similar (426 vs. 402 ml, P = 0.71), as well as 6 months %EWL (66.3 vs. 66.6 %; P = 0.91) and 1 year %EWL (75.6 vs. 71.3 %, P = 0.21). A 1-year %EWL higher than 50 was achieved in 96.5 % of patients in group A versus 85.2 % in group B (P = 0.11).

Conclusions

The use of different bougie diameters had no impact on the volume of resected stomach, morbidity or short-term weight loss after LSG, although a trend was seen toward better weight loss with the smaller bougie. A longer-lasting follow-up will be necessary to further assess differences.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ASMBS Clinical Issues Committee (2012) Updated position statement on sleeve gastrectomy as a bariatric procedure. Surg Obes Relat Dis 8(3):e21–e26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cottam D, Qureshi FG, Mattar LSG, Sharma S, Holover S, Bonanomi G, Ramanathan R, Schauer P (2006) Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as an initial weight-loss procedure for high-risk patients with Morbid obesity. Surg Endosc 20(6):859–863

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yuval JB, Mintz Y, Cohen MJ, Rivkind AI, Elazar R (2013) The effects of bougie caliber on leaks and excess weight loss following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Is there an ideal bougie size? Obes Surg 23(10):1685–1691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosenthal RJ, International Sleeve Gastrectomy Expert Panel (2012) International Sleeve Gastrectomy Expert Panel Consensus Statement: best practice guidelines based on experience of 12,000 cases. Surg Obes Relat Dis 8(1):8–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, Formisano G, Buchwald H, Scopinaro N (2015) Bariatric surgery worldwide 2013. Obes Surg (Epub ahead of print April 4 2015)

  6. Weiner RA, Weiner S, Pomhoff I, Jacobi C, Makarewicz W, Weigand G (2007) Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy—influence of sleeve size and resected gastric volume. Obes Surg 17(10):1297–1305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Aurora AR, Khaitan L, Saber AA (2012) Sleeve gastrectomy and the risk of leak: a systematic analysis of 4,888 patients. Surg Endosc 26(6):1509–1515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Parikh M, Gagner M, Heacock L, Strain G, Dakin G, Pomp A (2008) Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: does bougie size affect mean %EWL? Short-term outcomes. Surg Obes Relat Dis 4(4):528–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Atkins ER, Preen DB, Jarman C, Cohen LD (2012) Improved obesity reduction and co-morbidity resolution in patients treated with 40-French bougie versus 50-French bougie four years after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Analysis of 294 patients. Obes Surg 22(1):97–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Abd Ellatif ME, Abdallah E, Askar W, Thabet W, Aboushady M, Abbas AE, El Hadidi A, Elezaby AF, Salama AF, Dawoud IE, Moatamed A, Wahby M (2014) Long term predictors of success after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Int J Surg 12(5):504–508

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Spivak H, Rubin M, Sadot E, Pollak E, Feygin A, Goitein D (2014) Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy using 42-French versus 32-French bougie: the first-year outcome. Obes Surg 24(7):1090–1093

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fernández E, Cal P, Mendoza JP, Deluca L, Caeiro A, De Rosa P, Crincoli G (2011) Bypass gástrico en Y-de-Roux y gastrectomía tubular laparoscópicos: comparación de morbilidad y resultados globales. Presented at Academia Argentina de Cirugía

  13. Cesana G, Uccelli M, Ciccarese F, Carrieri D, Castello G, Olmi S (2014) Laparoscopic re-sleeve gastrectomy as a treatment of weight regain after sleeve gastrectomy. World J Gastrointest Surg 6(6):101–106

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro de Rehabilitación Quirúrgica de la Obesidad, Riobamba 429, 8º 806, CP1025, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Patricio Cal, Luciano Deluca, Tomás Jakob & Ezequiel Fernández

Authors
  1. Patricio Cal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luciano Deluca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tomás Jakob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ezequiel Fernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricio Cal.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Dr. Ezequiel Fernández is a proctor for Johnson & Johnson Ethicon in Argentina; Drs Patricio Cal, Luciano Deluca and Tomás Jakob have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cal, P., Deluca, L., Jakob, T. et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with 27 versus 39 Fr bougie calibration: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 30, 1812–1815 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4450-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4450-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation