Trial reportObesity surgery2025
Antral Preserving Versus Antral Resecting Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Patients with Severe Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Obesity surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence-Based Prevention of De Novo GERD after Bariatric Surgery: Comparing Human and AI Inference.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Surgeons Performing Sleeve Gastrectomy Fret too much about the Antral Mill!Obesity surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare outcomes following antral preserving (AP) and antral resecting (AR) laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in terms of weight loss, gastric emptying time, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), resolution of associated medical problems, and complications.
methodsPatients were prospectively randomized into two groups: the AR group (resection starting 2 cm from the pylorus) and the AP group (resection at 5 cm from the pylorus). Follow-up evaluations included assessments of weight loss using percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) and percentage of total weight loss (%TWL), gastric emptying, GERD symptoms, associated medical problem resolution, residual gastric volume, and complications. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, gastric scintigraphy, and residual sleeve volumetry were conducted at 12 months.
resultsOne hundred patients who met inclusion criteria were enrolled, with comparable baseline parameters such as BMI, age, and comorbidities between the groups. Ninety-five patients underwent randomization (49 in AP group and 46 in the AR group), and outcomes were compared. %EWL was higher in the AR group at 12 and 24 months, although this difference was not statistically significant (AP vs. AR: 64.5 ± 20.6 vs. 72.9 ± 20.8, p = 0.1, and 66.3 ± 21.8 vs. 74 ± 22.2, p = 0.2, respectively). %TWL at 12 months was significantly different between the groups (AP: 28.4 ± 6.4 vs. AR: 32 ± 8, p = 0.01), as was %TWL at 24 months (AP: 29.1 ± 8.4 vs. AR: 33 ± 8.3, p = 0.01). Gastric emptying increased postoperatively in both groups, with significantly higher residual gastric volume in the AP group. Reflux symptoms decreased in both groups compared to baseline, and associated medical problem resolution and major complication rates were similar between the groups.
conclusionsAR-LSG leads to better weight loss without increasing reflux symptoms compared to AP-LSG. Both procedures showed similar resolution of associated medical problems and complication rates.
trial registrationCTRI (CTRI/2018/08/015191).
Indexed as
Identifiers
39730942What 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.