Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2025
Single-Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy Model in Mice
Published on: February 10, 2023
Endoscopic versus laparoscopic bariatric procedures: A computational biomechanical study through a patient-specific
Ilaria Toniolo1, Paola Pirini2, Silvana Perretta3
1Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Padova, Italy; Centre for Mechanics of Biological Materials, University of Padova, Italy.
Background And Objectives:
Within the framework of computational biomechanics, finite element models of the gastric district could be seen as a potential clinical tool not only to study the effects apported by bariatric surgery, but also to compare different surgical techniques such as the new emerging Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty (ESG) with respect to well-established ones (such as the Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy, LSG).
Methods:
This work realized a fully computational comparison between the outcomes obtained from 10 patient-specific stomach models, which were used to simulate ESG, and the complementary results obtained from models representing the post-LSG of the same subjects. Specifically, once the ESG was simulated, a mechanical stimulus was applied by increasing an intragastric pressure up to a maximum of 5 kPa, in order to replicate the process of food intake, as well as for post-LSG models.
Results:
Results revealed non negligible differences between the techniques also within the same subject. In particular, not only LSG could lead to a greater reduction in the stomach volume (about 77 % at baseline, which is strictly linked to weight loss), but also influence the gastric distension (12 % less than pre-operative models). On the contrary, if ESG would be performed, a more similar pre-operative mechanical stimulation of the gastric walls may be seen (difference of about 1 %), thus preserving the mechanosensation, but the detriment of the volume reduction (about 56 % at baseline, and even decreases with increasing pressure). Moreover, since results suggested ESG may be more influenced by the pre-operative gastric cavity than LSG, a predictive model was proposed to support the surgical planning and the estimation of the volume reduction after ESG.
Conclusions:
ESG and LSG have substantial differences in their protocols and post-surgical effects. This work pointed out that variations between the two procedures may be observed also from a computational point of view, especially when including patient-specific geometries. These insights support gastric modelling as a valuable tool to evaluate, design and critically compare emerging bariatric surgical procedures, not only from empirical aspects and clinical outcomes, but also from a mechanical point of view.
