Search

Background and Aims: Endoscopy is effective in management of bariatric surgery (BS) adverse events (AEs) but a comprehensive evaluation of long-term results is lacking. Our aim is to assess the effectiveness of a standardized algorithm for the treatment of BS-AE., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 1020 consecutive patients treated in our center from 2012 to 2020, collecting data on demographics, type of BS, complications, and endoscopic treatment. Clinical success (CS) was evaluated considering referral delay, healing time, surgery, and complications type. Logistic regression was performed to identify variables of CS., Results: In the study period, we treated 339 fistulae (33.2%), 324 leaks (31.8%), 198 post-sleeve gastrectomy twist/stenosis (19.4%), 95 post-RYGB stenosis (9.3 %), 37 collections (3.6%), 15 LAGB migrations (1.5%), 7 weight regains (0.7%), and 2 hemorrhages (0.2%). Main endoscopic treatments were as follows: pigtail-stent positioning under endoscopic view for both leaks (CS 86.1%) and fistulas (CS 77.2%), or under EUS-guidance for collections (CS 88.2%); dilations and/or stent positioning for sleeve twist/stenosis (CS 80.6%) and bypass stenosis (CS 81.5%). After a median (IQR) follow-up of 18.5 months (4.29-38.68), complications rate was 1.9%. We found a 1% increased risk of redo-surgery every 10 days of delay to the first endoscopic treatment. Endoscopically treated patients had a more frequent regular diet compared to re-operated patients., Conclusions: Endoscopic treatment of BS-AEs following a standardized algorithm is safe and effective. Early endoscopic treatment is associated with an increased CS rate., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Bariatric surgery is among the therapeutic options for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), affecting 90% of patients with obesity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the evolution of NAFLD lesions 1 year after surgery using noninvasive markers., Methods: From November 2011 to November 2012, 253 patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery in three French University Hospitals were included. Histological data regarding intraoperative liver biopsy were collected at baseline, clinical, and biological data, including FibroTest®, SteatoTest®, and NASHTest®, before and after surgery., Results: Fibrosis' prevalence was 74.2% with a positive predictive value (PPV) for FibroTest® of 78.6% and 43.4% for significant fibrosis (Kleiner ≥ F2) with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 56.1%. NAFLD's prevalence was 84% with a PPV for SteatoTest® of 85.9% and 7.7% for NASH with an NPV for NASHTest® of 93.8%. One year after bariatric surgery, mean BMI had significantly decreased from 46.5 to 31.7 kg/m 2 (p < 0.001). Fibrosis assessed by the FibroTest® showed that 82.5% of patients were F0 after surgery compared to 90.9% before. Using SteatoTest®, the percent of patient without steatosis (S0) increased from 1.6 to 49.6% after surgery, and rate of severe steatosis (S3) improved from 43.3 to 3.9%. NASHTest® revealed that the percent of patients without NASH increased from 12.8 to 73.6% and rates of NASH improved from 12 to 0.8%., Conclusions: Validated noninvasive biomarkers SteatoTest® and NASHTest® suggested NAFLD and steatohepatitis improvement after bariatric surgery and might be useful tools for patient follow-up. Regarding fibrosis, FibroTest® was not accurate in patients with extreme obesity., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) is a heterogeneous disease affecting connective tissues. EDS patients have a high susceptibility for developing anastomotic leak after visceral surgery. Although patients with EDS can also develop severe obesity and might be referred to bariatric surgery, there is just 1 case report in the literature regarding the outcomes of bariatric surgery in this specific context., Objective: To report the cases of patients with EDS and severe obesity that underwent bariatric surgery., Setting: Five French hospitals (University Hospital of Nantes, APHP Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, APHP Bichat Hospital, Clinique St Gregoire Rennes, and Clinique Mutualiste de l'Estuaire St Nazaire)., Methods: We report the cases of 7 patients with EDS and severe obesity who underwent surgery., Results: All patients showed classical postoperative course except for 1 case of excessive bleeding. There was no increased pain, leak, and solid parietal healing was achieved in all patients at 1 month postoperatively. The percent excess weight loss at 1 and 6 months were 13.9 ± 3.8% and 45.3 ± 16%, respectively., Conclusion: Our study shows that bariatric surgery is a relevant and apparently safe surgical option to consider in severely obese patients with EDS., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Bariatric/metabolic surgery was paused during the Covid-19 pandemic. The impact of social confinement and the interruption of this surgery on the population with obesity has been underestimated, with weight gain and worsened comorbidities. Some candidates for this surgery are exposed to a high risk of mortality linked to the pandemic. Obesity and diabetes are two major risk factors for severe forms of Covid-19. The only currently effective treatment for obesity is metabolic surgery, which confers prompt, lasting benefits. It is thus necessary to resume such surgery. To ensure that this resumption is both gradual and well-founded, we have devised a priority ranking plan. The flow charts we propose will help centres to identify priority patients according to a benefit/risk assessment. Diabetes holds a central place in the decision tree. Resumption patterns will vary from one centre to another according to human, physical and medical resources, and will need adjustment as the epidemic unfolds. Specific informed consent will be required. Screening of patients with obesity should be considered, based on available knowledge. If Covid-19 is suspected, surgery must be postponed. Emphasis must be placed on infection control measures to protect patients and healthcare professionals. Confinement is strongly advocated for patients for the first month post-operatively. Patient follow-up should preferably be by teleconsultation., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Severe obesity is associated with a high prevalence of moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSA). Bariatric surgery has been shown to effectively reduce excess weight and comorbidities., Methods: We evaluated the remission rate of moderate-to-severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ≥ 15) following sleeve gastrectomy. We performed a single-center retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent preoperative polysomnography (PSG) or polygraphy before primary sleeve gastrectomy. Patients with moderate-to-severe OSA treated by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) also underwent postoperative PSG. Bivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the criteria associated with remission of moderate-to-severe OSA., Results: From 2013 to 2018, 39 of 162 patients (24.1%) scheduled for sleeve gastrectomy (SG) presented moderate-to-severe OSA requiring CPAP. Postoperative PSG was performed in 36 patients a mean of 9.9 ± 6.1 months after SG. Mean BMI decreased from 47.4 ± 8.4 to 36.3 ± 7.1 kg/m 2 (p < 0.001), and all patients reported clinical improvement of OSA symptoms. A remission of moderate-to-severe OSA was observed in 72.2% of patients with a mean decrease of AHI from 45.8 events/h to 11.3 events/h (p < 0.001). Postoperative neck circumference was the only factor associated with OSA remission., Conclusion: SG is associated with a rapid improvement of moderate-to-severe OSA partially as a result of a reduction of neck circumference. However, the absence of correlation with excess weight loss suggests that other weight-independent factors may also be involved.

Day-case surgery (DCS) in digestive surgery is a hot topic, and new indications for DCS in the field of gastrointestinal surgery have recently been described. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become a popular bariatric procedure in recent years. LSG is a reproducible, standardized procedure with a short operating time and possibly simple perioperative management. It therefore meets the criteria to be performed as a DCS procedure. Recently published series of LSG as DCS have demonstrated its feasibility. In this review on LSG performed as DCS, we focused on the management of risks associated with DCS and the results of such type of management. A literature search was conducted in the PubMed and Embase databases. Six studies were selected, comprising a total of 6227 patients. Most published series were retrospective single-center studies. Inclusion criteria were similar between most studies (primary sleeve gastrectomy for most series, patients with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m 2 or a body mass index ≥35 kg/m 2 in the presence of co-morbidities), while exclusion criteria were based on literature data for some studies (using series on risk factors for morbidity and mortality after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) and personal experience for other series. The mortality rate of LSG as DCS ranges 0%-.08%, while the overall complication rate ranges 0%-10%. The unplanned overnight admission rate after LSG ranges .8%-8%. The unscheduled hospitalization rates range 2.1%-8.5%. LSG performed as DCS is feasible with good results, but cannot be proposed for all patients. Good selection is necessary in others to avoid increased risk of morbidity and mortality., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Few series have demonstrated the feasibility of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) as day-case surgery (DCS)., Objective: Compare the outcomes and healthcare costs of SG performed as DCS or as an inpatient procedure., Setting: University Hospital, France, public practice., Methods: This was a prospective, nonrandomized study of 250 consecutive patients undergoing day-case SG from May 2011 to June 2017. Each patient in the DCS group (n = 250) was manually paired by sex, age, body mass index, preoperative co-morbidities, and year of surgery with 1 patient undergoing SG as an inpatient procedure (SG control group, n = 250). Patients in the SG control group were excluded from DCS on the basis of DCS criteria. The primary endpoint of this study was the clinical and economic impact of performing SG as DCS compared with inpatient management. The secondary endpoints were related to DCS, DCS satisfaction rate, comparison of outcomes and costs between DCS and inpatient procedures, and the changing modalities of SG as DCS in our institution (by comparing the first 100 patients to the last 150 patients)., Results: A total of 1573 patients underwent SG during the period, 250 patients underwent SG as DCS (15.9%) and 554 patients were excluded on the basis of DCS criteria. No postoperative deaths, 19 overnight admissions (7.6%), 16 unscheduled consultations (6.4%), and 12 unscheduled hospitalizations (4.8%) were observed in the DCS group. No significant differences were observed in postoperative complications. Readmission was higher in the DCS group (5.6% versus 4%; P < .001), while the length of rehospitalization was shorter in the DCS group (5.8 versus 10.8 d; P < .001). Overall cost and cost per patient were significantly lower in the DCS group (P < .001)., Conclusion: Day-case SG on selected patients was not associated with increased morbidity and mortality rates and was cost-effective due to the low cost of management of postoperative complications., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few series are available concerning repeat sleeve gastrectomy (re-SG), and series have reported contradictory results concerning morbidity rates, with limited data concerning weight loss., Objective: Evaluate the short- and medium-term outcomes of re-SG., Setting: University hospital, France, public practice., Methods: Between June 2007 and March 2016, all patients undergoing re-SG (n = 46 patients) were included. Re-SG was proposed for patients with insufficient excess weight loss (EWL) (≤50%) or renewed weight gain with excessively high residual gastric volume (>250 mL and/or large gastric pouch). The primary efficacy endpoint was the overall complication rate of re-SG. The secondary efficacy endpoints were operative data, evaluation of weight loss, and correction of co-morbidities, risk factors for gastric leak (GL), by comparing 2 periods (period 1, January 2004-December 2013: blue/green or purple staplers without reinforcement; period 2, after December 2013: black staplers with reinforcement) and comparison of weight loss according to the indication for re-SG., Results: The re-SG group consisted of 46 patients (35 women, mean age: 47.5 yr). The mean body mass index (BMI) before SG was 47.2 kg/m² (35-63.6). The mean time interval between SG and re-SG was 73 months (11-106). The BMI before re-SG was 41.2 kg/m² (29-54.7). Indications for surgery were insufficient weight loss in 25 patients (54.3%) and weight regain in 21 patients (45.7%). A large gastric pouch was visible in 4 patients (8.6%). The mean operating time was 97.6 minutes (45-220). One death (2.1%) and 7 complications (15.2%) were observed. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.6 days (1-30). At last follow-up, mean BMI was 32.1 kg/m 2 (20.3-41.3) and mean EWL was 62.3% (18-127.2). When analyzing risk factors for GL, residual gastric volume between 250 and 350 mL was associated with a higher GL rate compared with a volume ≥350 mL, and re-SG performed during period 1 was associated with a higher GL rate than re-SG performed during period 2 (17.4% versus 0%; P = .13). Re-SG performed for weight regain was associated with a significantly higher additional weight loss compared with re-SG performed for insufficient weight loss (mean additional EWL of 45.9%; P = .06)., Conclusion: Re-SG is feasible, but it requires adaptation of the surgical procedure to decrease complications. Results on weight loss are acceptable, but the best indications for re-SG were a gastric volume>350 mL and in the case of weight regain with the exception of technical failure of the primary SG., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Good surgical practice guidelines in France state that patients eligible for bariatric surgery must always be discussed at a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting., Objective: Describe MDT meetings and assess their possible impact on the postoperative course., Setting: University Hospital, France, public practice., Methods: From April 2009 to March 2013, we included all patients reviewed in a MDT meeting before bariatric surgery. The primary endpoint was the case validation rate. The secondary endpoints were the number of MDT meetings, the number of submissions discussed or refused, outcomes in patients who underwent surgery in another center after refusal, or deferral in our MDT meeting., Results: Forty-nine MDT meetings were held representing 1099 case files (816 patients) that were discussed. Of the case files, 84.5% concerned first-line surgery, 14% concerned second-line surgery, and 1.4% concerned third-line surgery. Overall, 776 (70.6%) of these submissions were approved, accounting for 95% of the patients. Further investigation before a decision was required in 13.3%. Surgery was definitively refused in 1% (n = 11). For the 776 patients having undergone surgery, the complication rate was 10.1%, the major complication rate was 6%, and the reoperation rate was 3.2%. For the 11 patients for whom bariatric surgery was refused, 7 patients underwent surgery in another center (without MDT meetings). There were 4 postoperative complications (57.1%; 3 major and 1 minor)., Conclusion: The MDT meeting's decision is important for standardizing the management of obese patients before bariatric surgery. MDT meetings might help to reduce complication by optimizing patient selection and preoperative care., (Copyright © 2017 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

During laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), adhesions between the stomach and the pancreas are sometimes found, forming a "gastropancreatic ligament" (GPL). However, the GPL has only been described once in the literature, in 1985. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of the GPL during LSG, describe this structure and assess its effect on the surgical technique. All patients undergoing primary LSG in our institution (n = 240) and patients referred for gastric fistula (GF) after primary LSG (n = 18) between January 2015 and December 2015 were included. The primary endpoint was the incidence of a GPL during primary LSG. The secondary endpoints were the postoperative complication rate, the postoperative GF rate, and the presence of this ligament during reoperation for GF. Among the 240 patients, a GPL was visible in 49 cases (20.4%) and was described as thin in 34 of these (69.4%). Twelve postoperative complications (5%) were observed, including seven major (2.9%). The GF rate was 2% (n = 5), not requiring reoperation. The gastric stenosis rate was 0.4% (n = 1). The GPL had been previously sectioned in one of the five patients (20%) with postoperative GF. During the study period, 18 patients were referred for GF and 14 were reoperated. A non-sectioned GPL, not described in the operating report, was observed in four patients (28.5%). A GPL was identified in 20.4% of cases. Identification of a GPL could be important in the context of LSG, as section of the ligament allows tension-free stapling to be performed and can therefore possibly reduce the risk of postoperative complications, particularly GF. Clin. Anat. 30:336-341, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Gastrobronchial fistula (GBF) is a complication of esophageal, splenic, or antireflux surgeries and was recently described as a complication of bariatric surgery. Our aim was to study all cases of GBF after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) managed in five French university bariatric centers in order to establish the incidence and to evaluate the different treatments of this complication., Methods: We retrospectively studied 13 patients which developed GBF after LSG performed between March 2007 and August 2012. Patients were separated into two groups: patients who had early gastric fistula which has evolved into a GBF (group 1) and patients who had a late gastric fistula, either directly GBF or a late gastric fistula evolved in GBF (group 2)., Results: Group 1 consisted of five patients and group 2 of eight patients. All patients were undernourished at diagnosis. Management of GBF was a combined thoraco-abdominal surgery with gastrojejunal anastomosis (n = 5) or total gastrectomy (n = 1), multiple endoscopic treatment and thoracic surgery (n = 3), an endobronchial valve (n = 1), total gastrectomy and thoracic drainage (n = 1), and transorificial intubation with thoracic surgery or drainage (n = 2). There was no mortality. All GBF healed., Conclusions: GBF after LSG is a serious complication which is not anecdotal. Most of the early gastric fistulas occuring after LSG become chronic and can evolve into a GBF. Surgical approach is an effective treatment. Endobronchial valve is a novel alternative.

Background: Reports on the postoperative outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) have only been from small, single-center series and meta-analyses of studies with variable SG management. The objective of this study was to evaluate post-SG outcomes in a specialized bariatric surgery center with a routinely performed standardized procedure., Methods: The postoperative complication rate, operating times, and postoperative data were evaluated from all patients undergoing a primary SG between November 2004 and February 2012. Results were analyzed for 3 separate surgical periods, which differed with perioperative management., Results: Of 600 patients (mean age: 41.8±11.3; mean body mass index [BMI]: 47.2±16 kg/m²; 80% were women who underwent primary SG), 26.8% had a BMI≥50 kg/m². The mean operating time was 84 minutes. The rate of conversion was 1%. There were no postoperative deaths. The overall complication rate was 8.5%; the major complication rate was 5.6%; the revisional surgery rate was 4.6% and the gastric leak rate was 2.5%. Over the course of the 3 study periods, the operating time fell from 91±32 to 79±22 minutes (P≤.001); the length of hospital stay decreased from 4.5±4.9 to 3.4±4.3 days (P = .02); the major complication rate fell from 6.4% to 5.5% (P = NS); and the gastric fistula rate decreased from 4.6% to 1.9% (P = NS)., Conclusion: In a specialist bariatric surgery center, SG had an acceptable complication rate. Modifications in the perioperative management of SG were associated with a shorter mean operating time and hospital stay and did not increase the major complication or gastric fistula rates., (Copyright © 2014 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: The development of outpatient surgery is one of the major goals of the public health policy in 2010. The purpose of this observational study is to evaluate the feasibility of the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in ambulatory., Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted from May 2011 to June 2013. The procedure was proposed for patients undergoing LSG who were predetermined inclusion criteria. Following preoxygenation, anaesthesia was induced with propofol and sufentanil. Tracheal intubation was facilitated with rocuronium. Anaesthesia was maintained with desflurane and remifentanil target-controlled infusion. Antiemetic prophylaxis was supplied with intravenous (IV) droperidol and dexamethasone; postoperative pain prophylaxis was IV paracetamol, nefopam, tramadol, and ropivacaine infiltration. The patients were extubated in the operating room and kept in the postoperative care unit. A water-soluble contrast examination was performed in the output of the postoperative care unit. Oral feeding was resumed immediately in the absence of fistula on this leak test in an ambulatory surgical unit. When the patient has satisfied the modified Post-Anaesthesia Discharge Scoring System (PADSS) criteria, he or she can then be discharged and sent home., Results: Among 280 patients operated on for obesity by laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy during the study period, 68 (24.2 %) underwent ambulatory procedure. Of the 68 obese patients, 94.1 % were female. Mean age was 34.4 years (22-55). Mean preoperative BMI was 42.6kg/m(2). Thirteen patients (19.1 %) had HTN; 7 (10.2 %) had dyslipidemia and 6 (8.8 %) had diabetes not requiring treatment. The mean operating time was 60minutes (range, 45-95) and there were no conversions to open surgery. No intra-operative anesthetic or surgical complications occurred. Mean time in the recovery room was 86.5minutes (35-240). The overall satisfaction rate was 92.6 % (n=63). No patients were admitted because of nausea or inadequate pain control. There were no re-admissions or hospitalizations were reported. We recorded five surgical complications including two case of gastric fistula, one case of gastric stenosis, one case of scar dehiscence and one case of splenic upper pole ischemia. Its complications have arisen from the fourth postoperative day. This does not undermine the ambulatory procedure., Conclusion: The laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in ambulatory is feasible with a dedicated anesthesiological concept in an expert surgical team. Appropriate patient selection is important in order to secure safety and quality of care within outpatient program. The risk versus benefit must be adequately evaluated on an individual basis., (Copyright © 2014 Société française d’anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Like Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been validated as a bariatric surgery procedure in its own right. However, the few studies of the long-term outcomes of LSG have only featured small patient populations. The objective of the present study was to evaluate weight loss 5 years after LSG and assess the surgical learning curve for this procedure., Methods: We performed a retrospective, single-center study of a prospective database including all consecutive patients having undergone LSG at Amiens University Medical Center between November 2004 and July 2007. Data (weight, body mass index [BMI], percentage of excess weight loss [EWL], percentage of excess BMI loss, and percentage weight loss [PWL]) were collected during follow-up (particularly after 5 years)., Results: The study population comprised 118 patients (100 females [85%]; mean ± SD age, 40 ± 11 years; mean preoperative weight, 131 ± 22 kg; mean preoperative BMI, 47.7 ± 7 kg/m(2)). LSG was performed after failure of gastric banding in 23 cases (19%) and after failure of an intragastric balloon in 1 (0.8%). In all, 95 patients (81%) were analyzed ≥60 months after the LSG (mean follow-up period, 71 ± 9 months). The PWL and EWL were 25 ± 14% and 46 ± 26%, respectively. Eleven patients had undergone a second bariatric operation within 5 years of the LSG. Concerning the 84 patients in whom only LSG was the only operation, the PWL and EWL were 23 ± 14% and 43 ± 25%, respectively. The EWL was >50% in 35 of these 84 patients (42%) and between 25 and 50% in 30 cases (36%). Optimal weight results were achieved after only 28 LSG had been performed, which testifies to a shorter learning curve than for most other bariatric surgery techniques., Conclusion: Isolated LSG is a quickly mastered bariatric surgery technique with a short learning curve. It enables a mean PWL of >25% and an EWL of >50% in >40% of cases., (Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Some researchers have suggested that the weight loss of a patient who has undergone bariatric surgery could be influenced by his or her family environment. Indeed, some people decide to undergo surgery after another family member has had the operation. This study aimed to evaluate the results of longitudinal sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) performed for several members of a family compared with to a control group of unrelated individuals., Material and Methods: On the basis of preoperative data, 78 LSG patients from 39 families (the LSG-family group) were matched 1:1 with 78 LSG patients selected from among 550 LSG patients whose family members had undergone no bariatric surgery (the LSG group). Within the LSG-family group, a distinction was drawn between family members who had undergone surgery before their relation (the LSG-family 1 subgroup) and those who had undergone surgery after their relation (the LSG-family 2 subgroup)., Results: The median preoperative body mass index (BMI) in each of the two groups was 48.1 kg/m². The LSG-family and LSG groups 24 months after surgery had respective mean BMIs of 28.6 and 32.5 kg/m² (p ≤ 0.01), excess weight losses (EWLs) of 83.5 % and 71.4 % (p ≤ 0.01), and missed consultation rates of 13.1 % and 25.9 % (p = 0.04). A comparison of the LSG-family 1 and family 2 subgroups 24 months after surgery showed respective mean BMIs of 30.0 and 27.5 kg/m² (p = 0.12), EWLs of 80.2 % and 86.2 % (p = 0.32), and missed consultation rates of 14.1 % and 12.1 % (p = 0.22)., Conclusion: The outcome for LSG in terms of weight loss and postoperative follow-up care was better in the family group than in the control group. This may have been due to better postoperative follow-up care for the patients in the LSG-family group. Within a family, the patients who had surgery after their relation showed a trend toward greater weight loss and better postoperative follow-up care.

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or tubular longitudinal gastrectomy has become a very popular bariatric procedure because of its apparent simplicity. SG requires gastrolysis of the greater curvature, which is facilitated by grasping the posterior aspect of the stomach to lift the stomach and thus expose the dissection plane. The exposure of the stomach is facilitated by grasping the posterior face of the stomach, thus leaving equally as much of the anterior face as of the posterior face of the stomach, the posterior face of the stomach being naturally wider. [Extracted from the article]