埃尔比勒市袖胃切除术与内镜胃内球囊术减轻体重及相关合并症的比较研究

Baderkhan Saeed Ahmed
{"title":"埃尔比勒市袖胃切除术与内镜胃内球囊术减轻体重及相关合并症的比较研究","authors":"Baderkhan Saeed Ahmed","doi":"10.26505/djm.v25i1.1015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Surgical obesity treatment is difficult for both surgeons and patients. The three main categories of bariatric surgery procedures are malabsorptive, restrictive, or both in combination. Intragastric balloon (IB) is an easily applicable restrictive interventional and nonsurgical strategy for obese patients, and the surgical procedure known as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is frequently used to help obese patients decrease weight.
 Objective: To assess and compare these two restrictive approaches.
 Patients and Methods: A prospective study of 138 LSG patients was conducted, (n=82) and IB (n=56) between 1st January 2016 to 31st December 2021 in private hospitals in Erbil, Iraq. The study retrospectively evaluates patients' demographic information, changes in total body weight (TBW), changes in body mass index (BMI), and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), morbidities and change of comorbidities during a year of follow-up, at months 1, 3, 6, and 12 after surgery. Comparative analysis was undertaken for the follow-up results after 6 and 12 months.
 Results: In the IB group, 12 patients did not tolerate insertion, leaving 56; in the LSG group, 82 patients completed treatment. In terms of age (p=0.121), gender (p=0.242), and BMI (p=0.078), there were no statistical differences between the IB and LSG groups. The LSG group achieved statistically significant superior treatment outcomes in terms of changes in TBW, BMI, and %EWL.
 Conclusion: Both LSG and IB are beneficial in the short term for helping obese patients lose weight. IB has the benefit of being performed as an outpatient procedure with less complications, but it is less successful in helping people lose weight than LSG. The best options for various patient groups in terms of clinical outcomes and health system effectiveness must be determined through prospective, randomized control studies.
","PeriodicalId":11202,"journal":{"name":"Diyala Journal of Medicine","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sleeve gastrectomy versus endoscopic intragastric balloon in decreasing weight and associated comorbidities in Erbil city: A comparative study\",\"authors\":\"Baderkhan Saeed Ahmed\",\"doi\":\"10.26505/djm.v25i1.1015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Surgical obesity treatment is difficult for both surgeons and patients. The three main categories of bariatric surgery procedures are malabsorptive, restrictive, or both in combination. Intragastric balloon (IB) is an easily applicable restrictive interventional and nonsurgical strategy for obese patients, and the surgical procedure known as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is frequently used to help obese patients decrease weight.
 Objective: To assess and compare these two restrictive approaches.
 Patients and Methods: A prospective study of 138 LSG patients was conducted, (n=82) and IB (n=56) between 1st January 2016 to 31st December 2021 in private hospitals in Erbil, Iraq. The study retrospectively evaluates patients' demographic information, changes in total body weight (TBW), changes in body mass index (BMI), and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), morbidities and change of comorbidities during a year of follow-up, at months 1, 3, 6, and 12 after surgery. Comparative analysis was undertaken for the follow-up results after 6 and 12 months.
 Results: In the IB group, 12 patients did not tolerate insertion, leaving 56; in the LSG group, 82 patients completed treatment. In terms of age (p=0.121), gender (p=0.242), and BMI (p=0.078), there were no statistical differences between the IB and LSG groups. The LSG group achieved statistically significant superior treatment outcomes in terms of changes in TBW, BMI, and %EWL.
 Conclusion: Both LSG and IB are beneficial in the short term for helping obese patients lose weight. IB has the benefit of being performed as an outpatient procedure with less complications, but it is less successful in helping people lose weight than LSG. The best options for various patient groups in terms of clinical outcomes and health system effectiveness must be determined through prospective, randomized control studies.
\",\"PeriodicalId\":11202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diyala Journal of Medicine\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diyala Journal of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26505/djm.v25i1.1015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diyala Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26505/djm.v25i1.1015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:手术治疗肥胖对外科医生和患者来说都是一个难题。减肥手术的三种主要类型是吸收不良、限制或两者结合。胃内球囊(IB)是一种容易适用于肥胖患者的限制性介入和非手术策略,腹腔镜袖胃切除术(LSG)常被用于帮助肥胖患者减轻体重。目的:评价和比较两种限制性入路。 患者和方法:2016年1月1日至2021年12月31日,在伊拉克埃尔比勒私立医院对138例LSG患者(n=82)和IB (n=56)进行了前瞻性研究。该研究回顾性评估了患者的人口统计信息、总体重(TBW)变化、体重指数(BMI)变化、超重减重百分比(%EWL)、发病率和合并症变化,随访时间为1年,随访时间为术后1、3、6和12个月。对6个月和12个月的随访结果进行对比分析。 结果:IB组有12例患者不能耐受插入,剩下56例;LSG组有82例患者完成了治疗。在年龄(p=0.121)、性别(p=0.242)和BMI (p=0.078)方面,IB组与LSG组之间无统计学差异。在TBW、BMI和%EWL的变化方面,LSG组的治疗结果具有统计学意义的优势。 结论:LSG和IB在短期内对肥胖患者的减肥均有有益的效果。IB的优点是作为门诊手术进行,并发症较少,但在帮助人们减肥方面不如LSG成功。就临床结果和卫生系统有效性而言,不同患者群体的最佳选择必须通过前瞻性、随机对照研究来确定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sleeve gastrectomy versus endoscopic intragastric balloon in decreasing weight and associated comorbidities in Erbil city: A comparative study
Background: Surgical obesity treatment is difficult for both surgeons and patients. The three main categories of bariatric surgery procedures are malabsorptive, restrictive, or both in combination. Intragastric balloon (IB) is an easily applicable restrictive interventional and nonsurgical strategy for obese patients, and the surgical procedure known as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is frequently used to help obese patients decrease weight. Objective: To assess and compare these two restrictive approaches. Patients and Methods: A prospective study of 138 LSG patients was conducted, (n=82) and IB (n=56) between 1st January 2016 to 31st December 2021 in private hospitals in Erbil, Iraq. The study retrospectively evaluates patients' demographic information, changes in total body weight (TBW), changes in body mass index (BMI), and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), morbidities and change of comorbidities during a year of follow-up, at months 1, 3, 6, and 12 after surgery. Comparative analysis was undertaken for the follow-up results after 6 and 12 months. Results: In the IB group, 12 patients did not tolerate insertion, leaving 56; in the LSG group, 82 patients completed treatment. In terms of age (p=0.121), gender (p=0.242), and BMI (p=0.078), there were no statistical differences between the IB and LSG groups. The LSG group achieved statistically significant superior treatment outcomes in terms of changes in TBW, BMI, and %EWL. Conclusion: Both LSG and IB are beneficial in the short term for helping obese patients lose weight. IB has the benefit of being performed as an outpatient procedure with less complications, but it is less successful in helping people lose weight than LSG. The best options for various patient groups in terms of clinical outcomes and health system effectiveness must be determined through prospective, randomized control studies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信