Evaluation of Preoperative Weight Loss


Study inclusion

Year

Investigator

Study type

Patients (n)

Procedure

Variables assessed

2007

Alami

RCT

61

LRYGB

Postoperative EWL, operating room time, complication rate, comorbidity resolution

2008

Alger-Mayer

Prospective

150

RYGB

Postoperative EWL

2007

Ali

Retrospective

351

LRYGB

Postoperative EWL

2005

Alvarado

Retrospective

90

LRYGB

Postoperative EWL, operating time, comorbidity resolution

2010

Becouarn

Retrospective

507

RYGB/LAGB/SG

Postoperative EWL

2009

Benotti

Retrospective

881

LRYGB/RYGB

Complication rate

2007

Broderick-villa

Retrospective

353

RYGB

Postoperative EWL

2008

Carlin

Retrospective

295

LRYGB

Postoperative EWL

2008

Conlee

Retrospective

105

RYGB

Postoperative EWL, operating time, complication rate, length of stay

2010

Eisenberg

Retrospective

256

LRYGB

Postoperative EWL

1997

Finigan

Prospective

31

LAGB

Postoperative EWL

2008

Fujioka

Retrospective

121

LRYGB/RYGB

Postoperative EWL, complication rate

2008

Gallo

Retrospective

494

LAGB

Postoperative EWL, operating time

2008

Harnisch

Retrospective

203

LRYGB

Postoperative EWL, operating time, complication rate, comorbidity resolution

2005

Hong

Retrospective

100

LAGB

Postoperative EWL

2008

Huerta

Retrospective

40

RYGB

Postoperative EWL, operating time, complication rate, length of stay

2009

Jantz

Retrospective

384

LRYGB

Postoperative EWL

2005

Liu

Retrospective

95

LRYGB

Operating time, complication rate, length of stay

1995

Martin

Prospective

100

RYGB

Postoperative EWL, complication rate

2007

Micucci

Retrospective

NR

RYGB

Postoperative EWL

2008

Mrad

Retrospective

146

LRYGB/RYGB/LAGB/VGB

Postoperative EWL

2005

Phan

Retrospective

364

LRYGB/RYGB/LAGB

Postoperative EWL

2008

Reiss

Retrospective

262

LRYGB

Postoperative EWL, operating time, complication rate, length of stay

2009

Segaran

Prospective

37

RYGB/LAGB/SG

Complication rate

2009

Solomon

RCT

44

LRYGB

Postoperative EWL, conversion rate, complication rate

2007

Still

Prospective

884

LRYGB/RYGB

Postoperative weight loss, length of stay

1999

Van de Weijgert

Retrospective

153

RYGB/VGB

Postoperative EWL


Adapted from Cassie et al. [1]

RCT randomized controlled trial, LRYGB laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, EWL excess weight loss, RYGB Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, LAGB laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, SG sleeve gastrectomy, VGB vertical gastric banding



Livhits and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 15 articles including 3,404 patients. Only two of the included cohorts were excluded from the Cassie review. Not surprisingly, the authors drew similar conclusions. Of the 15 articles analyzed, 5 studies had positive effects for PWL, 2 studies showed positive short-term effects, 5 studies showed no difference, and 1 study showed a negative effect. Overall no significant heterogeneity was seen among the studies with results of postoperative weight loss [3].



Operative Time


One of the hypothesized benefits of PWL includes shorter operative times, so looking at the studies that analyzed this is important in determining if PWL is needed. In the Alami study, total operating time was greater in the non-preoperative weight loss group (257.6 ± 27.8 min versus 220.2 ± 31.5 min) as compared with the preoperative weight loss group [4]. Harnisch and colleagues also found a slight benefit in OR time with PWL (119.7 versus 104.9 min, P

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Apr 2, 2016 | Posted by in General Surgery | Comments Off on Evaluation of Preoperative Weight Loss

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access