IntroductionRoux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is considered the gold standard bariatric procedure with documented safety and effectiveness. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a newer procedure being done with increasing frequency. Randomized comparisons of LSG and other bariatric procedures are limited. We present the results of the first prospective randomized trial comparing LSG and RYGB in the Polish population.AimTo assess the efficacy and safety of LSG versus RYGB in the treatment of morbid obesity and obesity-related comorbidities.Material and methodsSeventy-two morbidly obese patients were randomized to RYGB (36 patients) or LSG (36 patients). Both groups were comparable regarding age, gender, body mass index (BMI) and comorbidities. The follow-up period was at least 12 months. Baseline and 6 and 12 month outcomes were analyzed including assessment of percent excess weight lost (%EWL), reduction in BMI, morbidity (minor, major, early and late complications), mortality, reoperations, comorbidities and nutritional deficiencies.ResultsThere was no 30-day mortality and no significant difference in major complication rate (0% after RYGB and 8.3% after LSG, p > 0.05) or minor complication rate (16.6% after RYGB and 10.1% after LSG, p > 0.05). There were no early reoperations after RYGB and 2 after LSG (5.5%) (p > 0.05). Weight loss was significant after RYGB and LSG but there was no difference between both groups at 6 and 12 months of follow-up. At 12 months %EWL in RYGB and LSG groups reached 64.2% and 67.6% respectively (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the overall prevalence of comorbidities and nutritional deficiencies.ConclusionsBoth LSG and RYGB produce significant weight loss at 6 and 12 months after surgery. The procedures are equally effective with regard to %EWL, reduction in BMI and amelioration of comorbidities at 6 and 12 months of follow-up. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and RYGB are comparably safe techniques with no significant differences in minor and major complication rates at 6 and 12 months.
Unresectable HEHE, without extrahepatic metastases is an excellent indication for liver transplantation. Long-term survival is very good and much better than in HCC patients and the entire group of OLTx patients.
ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy of two quantitative methods for discrimination between benign and malignant focal liver lesions (FLLs): apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and T2 relaxation times.MethodsSeventy-three patients with 215 confirmed FLLs (115 benign, 100 malignant) underwent 1.5-T MRI with respiratory-triggered single-shot SE DWI (b = 50, 400, 800) and dual-echo T2TSE (TR = 3,000 ms; TE1 = 84 ms; TE2 = 228 ms). ADC values and T2 relaxation times of FLLs were calculated. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of both techniques in diagnosing malignancy were assessed.ResultsThe mean ADC value of malignant tumours (1.07 × 10−3 mm2/s) was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than that of benign lesions (1.86 × 10−3 mm2/s ); however, with the use of the optimal cut-off value of 1.25 × 10−3 mm2/s, 20 false positive (FP) and 20 false negative (FN) diagnoses of malignancy were noted, generating 79 % sensitivity, 82.6 % specificity and 80.9 % accuracy. The mean T2 relaxation time of malignant tumours (64.4 ms) was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than that of benign lesions (476.1 ms). At the threshold of 107 ms 22 FP and 1 FN diagnoses were noted; the sensitivity was 99 %, specificity 80.9 % and accuracy 89.3 %.ConclusionsQuantitative analysis of T2 relaxation times yielded significantly higher sensitivity and accuracy in diagnosing malignant liver tumour than ADC values.Key Points• Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging is increasingly used for liver lesions.• But ADC values demonstrated only moderate accuracy for differentiation of liver lesions.• T2 relaxation times yielded higher accuracy in diagnosing malignant liver tumours.• Both ADC and T2 values overlapped between focal nodular hyperplasia and malignant lesions.• Nevertheless T2 liver mapping could be valuable for evaluating focal liver lesions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.