ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery remains controversial due to technical challenges that can lead to suboptimal outcomes, and data pertaining to operative and clinical outcomes of reduced-port sleeve gastrectomy (RPSG) vs. conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG) are lacking. AIMS: This retrospective case-matched study aimed to compare midterm (2-year) outcomes of RPSG and of CLSG. METHODS: Patients included in the study had undergone laparoscopic bariatric surgery at our center between 2010 and 2017. Thirty-one consecutive female patients who underwent RPSG were compared to a sex-, age-, body mass index-matched group of 31 patients who underwent CLSG. Outcomes were evaluated and compared between groups. RESULTS: Estimated blood loss volume, incidences of intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of postoperative hospital stay did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Operation time was significantly greater in the RPSG group than in the CLSG group (148.7 ± 22.6 vs. 120.2 ± 25.9 min, respectively; p < 0.001). Excess weight loss at 1 year was 105.9% and 109.7%, respectively (p = 0.94) and at 2 years was 101.1% and 105.3%, respectively (p = 0.64). One RPSG patient required placement of additional trocars because of bleeding from short gastric vessels, but conversion to open surgery was not required. CONCLUSIONS: RPSG is feasible in carefully selected bariatric patients and results in midterm outcomes comparable to those observed after CLSG. Good cosmesis is a potential benefit of RPSG.
