ArticleObesity surgery2024
Is Routine Post-operative Biological Laboratory Assessment Necessary After Sleeve Gastrectomy?
Article in Obesity surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncidence of post-operative complications after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is low. However, the early identification of these complications remains crucial. Here, we report the impact of routine laboratory monitoring for the early diagnosis of complications after SG. MATERIAL AND
methodsFrom January 2018 to December 2019, all consecutive patients who underwent primary SG (n = 457) were included. This was a comparative study of patients undergoing primary SG. Patients were divided into two groups: one group with routine laboratory monitoring performed at postoperative day (POD) 1 and 3 (LAB group) and another group without routine laboratory monitoring (control group). The study's primary endpoint was the overall impact of routine laboratory monitoring. The secondary endpoints were evaluation of patients with complications.
resultsThe population in the two groups were similar in term of demographic and intra-operative data. There was a statistical difference between the two groups in term of length of stay (5.7 days in the LAB group and 3.5 days in the control group (p < 0.001)). There were 19 complications (6.0%) in the LAB group and 5 complications in the control group (3.5%) (p = 0.25). A cut-off C-reactive protein level of 46.3 mg/l was found to be significant (p = 0.006). In the LAB group, 9 patients (2.9%) required readmission vs. three patients (2.0%) in the control group (p = 0.62).
conclusionThe interest of routine laboratory monitoring after SG seems limited. Routine laboratory monitoring alone is not associated with earlier diagnosis of complications. This routine monitoring is associated with an increase of stay in hospital.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.