Scholarlink

Background <p>Obesity is a chronic disease associated with significant health risks. Minimally invasive, anatomy-preserving bariatric procedures such as Laparoscopic Greater Curvature Plication (LGCP) and Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty (ESG) have emerged as alternatives to standard surgical techniques.</p> Methods <p>This retrospective cohort study compared perioperative and mid-term outcomes of LGCP and ESG performed between January 2018 and March 2022. The primary outcome was percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) at 1 and 3 years. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, rates of revisional or conversional surgery, and procedural cost.</p> Results <p>A total of 144 patients were included (ESG: <i>n</i> = 70; LGCP: <i>n</i> = 74). At 1 year, %TBWL was significantly greater in the LGCP group than in the ESG group (22.7% vs. 17.3%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), and this difference persisted at 3 years (18.1% vs. 11.3%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Significantly more ESG patients required new PPI therapy compared with LGCP (30.0% vs. 16.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.049). Revisional or conversional surgery was more frequent after ESG than after LGCP (24.3% vs. 8.1%). Both procedures demonstrated a favorable safety profile with no mortality. Procedural cost was higher for ESG than for LGCP (USD 8,500 vs. USD 2,750, respectively).</p> Conclusion <p>Over a 3-year follow-up, LGCP was associated with greater observed weight loss, lower postoperative PPI use, and fewer revisional procedures compared with ESG. Both techniques were safe. LGCP was associated with lower procedural costs, while ESG remains a less invasive option for selected patients. However, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory due to baseline group differences and the retrospective study design and should not be interpreted as evidence of cost-effectiveness.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Laparoscopic Greater Curvature Plication versus Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty: A Comparative Analysis of Outcomes at a Single Center

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月14日

查看全文
  • Mohamad Hayssam ElFawal,
  • Abdul Rahman Omairi,
  • Huneida Hamzeh,
  • Rim Fawal,
  • Lina Haddad,
  • Aayed R AlQahtani,
  • Ali khalil,
  • Ricardo V Cohen,
  • Ashraf Haddad

摘要

Background

Obesity is a chronic disease associated with significant health risks. Minimally invasive, anatomy-preserving bariatric procedures such as Laparoscopic Greater Curvature Plication (LGCP) and Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty (ESG) have emerged as alternatives to standard surgical techniques.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study compared perioperative and mid-term outcomes of LGCP and ESG performed between January 2018 and March 2022. The primary outcome was percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) at 1 and 3 years. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, rates of revisional or conversional surgery, and procedural cost.

Results

A total of 144 patients were included (ESG: n = 70; LGCP: n = 74). At 1 year, %TBWL was significantly greater in the LGCP group than in the ESG group (22.7% vs. 17.3%, p < 0.001), and this difference persisted at 3 years (18.1% vs. 11.3%, p < 0.001). Significantly more ESG patients required new PPI therapy compared with LGCP (30.0% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.049). Revisional or conversional surgery was more frequent after ESG than after LGCP (24.3% vs. 8.1%). Both procedures demonstrated a favorable safety profile with no mortality. Procedural cost was higher for ESG than for LGCP (USD 8,500 vs. USD 2,750, respectively).

Conclusion

Over a 3-year follow-up, LGCP was associated with greater observed weight loss, lower postoperative PPI use, and fewer revisional procedures compared with ESG. Both techniques were safe. LGCP was associated with lower procedural costs, while ESG remains a less invasive option for selected patients. However, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory due to baseline group differences and the retrospective study design and should not be interpreted as evidence of cost-effectiveness.