A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Is Routine Post-operative Biological Laboratory Assessment Necessary After Sleeve Gastrectomy? | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • * Two groups were compared: one with laboratory tests on postoperative days 1 and 3 (LAB group) and one without these tests (control group).
  • * Results indicated no significant advantages for the LAB group in terms of complication rates, and routine monitoring led to longer hospital stays, suggesting limited benefits of this approach.

Article Abstract

Background: Incidence 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 Methods: From 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.

Results: The 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).

Conclusion: The 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11695-024-07065-zDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

routine laboratory
16
laboratory monitoring
16
impact routine
8
group routine
8
lab group
8
control group
8
groups term
8
group
6
routine
5
laboratory
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!