Effect of omentopexy/gastropexy on gastrointestinal symptoms after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and systematic review
Qian-Long Wu,Zhi Zhu,Yi Yuan,Jia-Ying Peng,Shu-Xin Zeng,Zi-Chun Xie
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ases.13173
Abstract:Introduction: The increased prevalence of obesity worldwide and low incidence of postoperative complications make the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) a clear public choice for obese-related individuals. Pre-existing studies reported contentious outcomes regarding the association with gastrointestinal symptoms after adding omentopexy (Ome) or gastropexy (Gas) to LSG. The present meta-analysis attempted to evaluate the pros and cons of operating Ome/Gas after LSG concerning gastrointestinal symptoms. Methods: The data extraction and study quality assessment were independently performed by two individuals. The PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to October 1, 2022, using the keywords LSG, omentopexy, and gastropexy to identify randomized controlled trial studies. Results: Of the original 157 records, 13 studies with 3515 patients were included. LSG with Ome/Gas excels the LSG group in nausea (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% CI[0.46, 0.70]; P < .00001), reflux (OR = 0.57; 95% CI [0.46, 0.70]; P < .00001), vomiting (OR = 0.41; 95% CI [0.25, 0.67]; P = .0004) on gastrointestinal symptoms and bleeding (OR = 0.36; 95% CI [0.22, 0.59]; P < .0001), leakage (OR = 0.19; 95% CI [0.09, 0.43]; P < .0001), gastric torsion (OR = 0.23; 95% CI [0.07, 0.75]; P = .01) on post-LSG complications. Further, LSG with Ome/Gas was superior to LSG regarding the result of excess body mass index loss in 1 year after surgery (mean difference = 1.83; 95% CI [0.59, 3.07]; P = .004). However, no significant associations were shown between groups in wound infection and the resulting weight or body mass index 1 year after surgery. Of note, subgroup analysis indicated that gastroesophageal reflux disease can be alleviated by adding Ome/Gas post-LSG in those who used small bougies from 32 to 36 Fr (OR = 0.24; 95% CI [0.17, 0.34]; P < .00001) in contrast with large bougies over 36 Fr. Conclusion: Most results elucidated the impact of adding Ome/Gas after LSG in reducing the incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms. Additionally, more studies should be conducted to find the relations between other indicators in the present analysis due to the poor cases.