Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is currently the most frequent primary bariatric procedure performed worldwide. LSG is safe and effective in terms of excess weight loss. It is a powerful metabolic operation that activates significant hormonal pathways that lead to changes in eating behaviour, glycemic control and intestinal functions. LSG is easier regarding its technical aspects and does not need any intestinal anastomosis, begin limited to the stomach. The most frequent and sometimes dangerous complications are leaking, haemorrhage, splenic injury, sleeve stenosis and gastroesophageal reflux. Despite its established efficacy and safety, controversy still exists on optimal operative technique for LSG: bougie size, the distance of resection margin from the pylorus, the shape of the section at the gastroesophageal junction, staple line reinforcement and intraoperative leak testing is among the most controversial issues 11[6]. In literature, different authors have adopted a resection distance from the pylorus between 2 and 6-7 cm with various reasons 11[6]. Resections more distant to the pylorus improve gastric emptying, prevent distal stenosis and reduce intraluminal pressure, potentially leading to a lower incidence of fistula and/or reflux. On the other hand, resections close to the pylorus would reduce gastric distensibility and increase intragastric pressure, potentially increasing satiety with less oral intake 11(11,12). The primary aim of this randomized monocentric study is to evaluate %EWL at 1 and 2 years follow-up after LSG in two Groups: Group A with a gastric resection starting from 2 cm from the pylorus with therefore a wide antrectomy and Group B with a gastric resection starting from 6 cm from the pylorus with therefore a small antrectomy.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Experimental | Resection of antrum proximally 2 cm to the pylorus |
|
| Group B | Active Comparator | Resection of antrum proximally 6 cm to the pylorus |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide antrectomy | Procedure | The starting point of resection of the stomach from the pylorus to begin the gastrectomy is 2 cm. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Postoperative weight and height combined to report BMI in kg/m^2 | Change of weight and height expressed in Postoperative Body Mass Index obtained by dividing the weight by the squared height expressed in meters (kg/m2) | 3 months |
| Postoperative weight and height combined to report BMI in kg/m^2 | Change of weight and height expressed in Postoperative Body Mass Index obtained by dividing the weight by the squared height expressed in meters (kg/m2) | 6 months |
| Postoperative weight and height combined to report BMI in kg/m^2 | Change of weight and height expressed in Postoperative Body Mass Index obtained by dividing the weight by the squared height expressed in meters (kg/m2) | 12 months |
| Postoperative weight and height combined to report BMI in kg/m^2 | Change of weight and height expressed in Postoperative Body Mass Index obtained by dividing the weight by the squared height expressed in meters (kg/m2) | 24 months |
| Postoperative percentage excess weigth loss | Change of weight expressed in percentage of excess weight loss postoperatively at follow-up | 3 months |
| Postoperative percentage excess weigth loss | Change of weight expressed in percentage of excess weight loss postoperatively at follow-up | 6 months |
| Postoperative percentage excess weigth loss |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Gastroesophageal reflux disease(GERD) | Esophagitys grading according to Los Angeles classification with Upper endoscopy (Grade A: One or more mucosal breaks < 5 mm in maximal length; Grade B: One or more mucosal breaks > 5mm, but without continuity across mucosal folds; Grade C: Mucosal breaks continuous between ≥ 2 mucosal folds, but involving less than 75% of the esophageal circumference Grade D Mucosal breaks involving more than 75% of esophageal circumference |
Not provided
Inclusion criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Francdesco Pizza | Naples | Naples | 80035 | Italy |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Nov 18, 2019 | Mar 24, 2020 | Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Smal antrectomy | Procedure | The starting point of resection of the stomach from the pylorus to begin the gastrectomy is 6 cm. |
|
Change of weight expressed in percentage of excess weight loss postoperatively at follow-up
| 12 months |
| Postoperative percentage excess weigth loss | Change of weight expressed in percentage of excess weight loss postoperatively at follow-up | 24 months |
| at 12 months |
| Gastroesophageal reflux disease(GERD) | Esophagitys grading according to Los Angeles classification with Upper endoscopy (Grade A: One or more mucosal breaks < 5 mm in maximal length; Grade B: One or more mucosal breaks > 5mm, but without continuity across mucosal folds; Grade C: Mucosal breaks continuous between ≥ 2 mucosal folds, but involving less than 75% of the esophageal circumference Grade D Mucosal breaks involving more than 75% of esophageal circumference | at 24 months |
| Gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms | All patients were surveyed about the presence of heartburn and/or regurgitation with a specific questionnaire GERD HRQL(Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Health-Related Quality of Life) questionnaire. Each of the 10 questions were rated from 0 (absence of symptoms) to 5 (severe symptoms) for a total score that may range from 0 to 50. Symptoms were defined as absent when patients reported a GERD-HRQL score of 0, mild from 1 to 15, moderate from 16 to 24, and severe from 25 to 50. Patients with GERD-HRQL score >16 was considered positive for GERD. | at 3 months |
| Gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms | All patients were surveyed about the presence of heartburn and/or regurgitation with a specific questionnaire GERD HRQL(Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Health-Related Quality of Life) questionnaire. Each of the 10 questions were rated from 0 (absence of symptoms) to 5 (severe symptoms) for a total score that may range from 0 to 50. Symptoms were defined as absent when patients reported a GERD-HRQL score of 0, mild from 1 to 15, moderate from 16 to 24, and severe from 25 to 50. Patients with GERD-HRQL score >16 was considered positive for GERD. | at 6 months |
| Gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms | All patients were surveyed about the presence of heartburn and/or regurgitation with a specific questionnaire GERD HRQL(Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Health-Related Quality of Life) questionnaire. Each of the 10 questions were rated from 0 (absence of symptoms) to 5 (severe symptoms) for a total score that may range from 0 to 50. Symptoms were defined as absent when patients reported a GERD-HRQL score of 0, mild from 1 to 15, moderate from 16 to 24, and severe from 25 to 50. Patients with GERD-HRQL score >16 was considered positive for GERD. | at 12 months |
| Gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms | All patients were surveyed about the presence of heartburn and/or regurgitation with a specific questionnaire GERD HRQL(Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Health-Related Quality of Life) questionnaire. Each of the 10 questions were rated from 0 (absence of symptoms) to 5 (severe symptoms) for a total score that may range from 0 to 50. Symptoms were defined as absent when patients reported a GERD-HRQL score of 0, mild from 1 to 15, moderate from 16 to 24, and severe from 25 to 50. Patients with GERD-HRQL score >16 was considered positive for GERD. | at 24 months |