Trocar number and placement for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and comparison of single-incision and conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG) has been conducted in multiple centers for treating morbid obesity, however, there are no standard criteria for (1) placing the trocar; and (2) how many trocars should be used. Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SLSG), a newly emerged technique in 2008, has been proposed as an alternative to CLSG in recent years, however, there is no definite evidence for this. Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy cases from January 2006 to October 2022. We then summarized the trocar numbers and placement patterns among these studies. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the difference between SLSG and CLSG in the perioperative and postoperative indices. Results: A total of 61 studies involving 20 180 patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for treating morbid obesity were included in the systematic review, including 11 on SLSG, 35 on CLSG, and 15 studies comparing SLSG and CLSG. A systematic review showed that the trocar number varied in different CLSG studies, mainly using four or five trocars. The trocars were mainly placed in position, presenting an inverted trapezoid pattern and a left-predominant pattern. Meta-analysis showed that the operative time in the SLSG was significantly higher than that in the CLSG, and the pain Visual Analog Scale rating on postoperative day 1 in the CLSG was significantly higher than in the SLSG. There were no statistical significances in the other complications or surgical efficiency. Conclusions: In the CLSG, the majority of the trocars were arranged in an inverted trapezoid pattern and were of the left-predominant type. Although SLSG is a feasible technique in selected patients, there is insufficient evidence to recommend its widespread use compared with CLSG. High-quality randomized controlled trials with large study populations and long follow-up periods will be required in the future.