Comparison between effectiveness of mini gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy in weight reduction in super obese patients | ||||
| The Egyptian Journal of Surgery | ||||
| Volume 39, Issue 2, April 2020 PDF (379.56 K) | ||||
| DOI: 10.4103/ejs.ejs_211_19 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Mohamed S. Abouelela; Farouk A. Mourad; Hisham A. Reyad | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background Morbid obesity is defined as BMI more than 40 kg/m, and those individuals with BMI more than 55 kg/m are classified as super obese patients. Super obese patients have been associated with higher morbidity and mortality and increased surgical risk. The optimal surgical management of these patients is controversial. The current work was designed to compare laparoscopic mini gastric bypass (MGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in super obese patients. Patients and methods This study included 50 super obese patients who were randomly divided into two groups: group 1 included 25 patients treated by laparoscopic MGB, and group 2 included 25 patients treated by laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Results The mean age of MGB group was 44.87±10.34 years, with a range between 34 and 58 years, whereas it was 45.11±9.09 years in case of SG group, with a range between 27 and 55 years. Most patients in both groups were females (60% in the case of MGB group and 68% in case of SG group). Mean percent of excess weight loss after 1 year was insignificantly higher in MGB group (79.76±5.78) in comparison with the SG group (76.11±5.22; =0.06), whereas BMI after 1 year was insignificantly lower in MGB group (35.12±3.89) in comparison with the SG group (36.22±4.87; =0.32). Conclusion Bariatric surgeries (LSG and MGB) are effective procedures for weight reduction, with insignificant differences between both, but the study suggests that MGB has a better and earlier effect than LSG. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Laparoscopic Mini Gastric Bypass; Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; super obese patients; Type 2 diabetes mellitus | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 21 PDF Download: 29 |
||||
