Cited by 60Bariatric Surgery and OutcomesMinimally Invasive Surgical TechniquesBody Contouring and Surgery

Antral resection versus antral preservation during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for severe obesity: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
McGlone, Emma Rose, Gupta, Ajay K., Reddy, Marcus, Khan, Omar A.·2018·Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases

Abstract

Although laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is an established operation for severe obesity, there is controversy regarding the extent to which the antrum is excised. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the effect on perioperative complications and medium-term outcomes of antral resecting versus antral preserving sleeve gastrectomy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1946 to April 2017. Eligible studies compared antral resection (staple line commencing 2-3 cm from pylorus) with antral preservation (>5 cm from pylorus) in patients undergoing primary sleeve gastrectomy for obesity. Meta-analyses were performed with a random-effects model, and risk of bias within and across studies was assessed using validated scoring systems. Eight studies (619 participants) were included: 6 randomized controlled trials and 2 cohort studies. Overall follow-up was 94% for the specified outcomes of each study. Mean percentage excess weight loss was 62% at 12 months (7 studies; 574 patients) and 67% at 24 months (4 studies; 412 patients). Antral resection was associated with significant improvement in percentage excess weight loss at 24-month follow-up (mean 70% versus 61%; standardized mean difference .95; confidence interval .35-1.58, P<.005), an effect that remained significant when cohort studies were excluded. There was no difference in incidence of perioperative bleeding, leak, or de novo gastroesophageal reflux disease. According to the available evidence, antral resection is associated with better medium-term weight loss compared with antral preservation, without increased risk of surgical complications. Further randomized clinical trials are indicated to confirm this finding.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.soard.2018.02.021

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McGlone, E. R., Gupta, A. K., Reddy, M., & Khan, O. A.
Affiliations
  • Hammersmith Hospital (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • Hebei Medical University (CN)
  • St George's Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
McGlone, Emma Rose
Venue
Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
857-864
ISSN
1550-7289 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2788521827
Cited by
60
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3
FWCI
1.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Body Contouring and Surgery
Keywords
laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy
MeSH terms
Gastrectomy, Gastroesophageal Reflux, Humans, Obesity, Morbid, Laparoscopy, Postoperative Complications, Pyloric Antrum, Weight Loss, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Bariatric Surgery, Anastomotic Leak, Organ Sparing Treatments

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review