| Title |
Revisional Surgery Following Laparoscopic Gastric Plication
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Obesity Surgery, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11695-016-2242-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlos Zerrweck, José G. Rodríguez, Elmo Aramburo, Rafael Vizcarra, José L. Rodríguez, Andrea Solórzano, Hernán G. Maydón, Elisa M. Sepúlveda |
| Abstract |
The laparoscopic gastric plication (LGP) is a relative new bariatric procedure that has gained popularity over the last few years, but no real consensus exists and the evidence is unclear, especially in its real efficacy, safety, and durability. Retrospective study analyzing the records patients submitted to LGP between 2009 and 2010. The primary objective was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients submitted to revisional surgery. Baseline data and evolution were obtained and analyzed. Surgical analysis included revision cause, perioperative outcome, type of surgery, complications, and weight loss after 18 months. A comparison between gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy was performed. One hundred LGP were performed. After a mean time of 13.5 months, 42 patients presented an overall excess weight loss (EWL) <50 % and 38 had severe symptoms. Thirty patients accepted revisional surgery with BMI before conversion of 38.6 ± 4.2 kg/m(2). There were 17 laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and 13 laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGBP) with comparable preoperative characteristics. The LSG group had lower pneumoperitoneum time and less hospital stay. At 18 months, the LGBP group had lower BMI (24.1 ± 1.1 vs. 25.8 ± 1.3 kg/m(2) for the LSG; p = 0.006) and higher %EWL (75.7 ± 16.1 vs. 61.4 ± 14.5 % for the LSG; p = 0.008). In our series, LGP presented a high failure rate and an increased number of symptomatic patients. Revisional surgery proved to be safe and effective. Revision to LSG was faster and had less hospital stay. Revision to LGBP showed better %EWL at 18 months. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 18% |
| Researcher | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 52% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 11 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,470,944
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from Obesity Surgery
#2,095
of 3,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,933
of 334,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obesity Surgery
#40
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,403 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.