Bariatric Surgery CandidateNCT07772440
Multicenter Cohort of 768 High-risk Patients With Symptomatic Gallstones, Adding Cholecystectomy Did Not Increase Length of Stay or Perioperative Morbidity, Supporting it as a Safe Single-stage Option
An observational study of Bariatric Surgery Candidate and Cholelithiases, run by Zagazig University.
Trial summary
Despite numerous single-center reports and meta-analyses, few studies have directly compared outcomes of LSG with versus without concomitant cholecystectomy exclusively in a high-risk cohort as defined above. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 60 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Bariatric Surgery Candidate, Cholelithiases
- How many people
- 2,512 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Jan 2015to 1 Jan 2025
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 60 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Study population: Data was collected from the archived medical records of the surgical departments of all the three research centers (in Zagazig city, Egypt, and the Najran University Hospital, Najran city, Saudi Arabia), and were retrospectively analyzed for all patients with inclusion criteria and the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was done, with or without concomitant laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the period from January 2015 to January 2025 (the study period). Patients were divided into: * Group A (LSG alone): High-risk patients with symptomatic stones who underwent LSG without cholecystectomy. * Group B (LSG with concomitant cholecystectomy): High-risk patients with symptomatic stones who underwent LSG and simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The decision to perform concomitant cholecystectomy was clinical, based on surgeon preference, patient consent, and intraoperative findings.
Who may be able to join
- High risk status (any of the following):
- Multiple comorbidities: ≥ 3 obesity related comorbidities
- Advanced age: ≥ 55 years
- Increased anesthetic risk: ASA physical status class ≥ III
- Symptomatic cholelithiasis
Who cannot join
- Asymptomatic cholelithiasis
- Prior cholecystectomy
- Choledocholithiasis requiring preoperative ERCP
- Suspected gallbladder malignancy
- Emergency surgery for acute cholecystitis or pancreatitis
- Concurrent other bariatric procedures (e.g., Roux en Y gastric bypass)
About this study
Official title: High-Risk Patients With Morbid Obesity and Symptomatic Cholelithiasis: Safety of Concomitant Cholecystectomy During Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy - A Multicenter Retrospective Comparative Study
Despite numerous single-center reports and meta-analyses, few studies have directly compared outcomes of LSG with versus without concomitant cholecystectomy exclusively in a high-risk cohort as defined above. To the best of our knowledge, only one prior study (Dincer and Dogan, 2019) specifically examined this high-risk population, and it included only 27 patients in the concomitant group. This multicenter retrospective comparative study - conducted in three research institutes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia - aims to evaluate the safety of concomitant cholecystectomy during LSG in high-risk patients with severe obesity and symptomatic cholelithiasis, using a control group of high-risk patients who underwent LSG alone. Our study provides the largest cohort to date specifically addressing this question in a high-risk population.
Read the detailed description
Data was collected from the archived medical records of the surgical departments of all the three research centers (in Zagazig city, Egypt, and the Najran University Hospital, Najran city, Saudi Arabia), and were retrospectively analyzed for all patients with inclusion criteria and the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was done, with or without concomitant laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the period from January 2015 to January 2025 (the study period).
Patients were divided into:
- Group A (LSG alone): High-risk patients with symptomatic stones who underwent LSG without cholecystectomy.
- Group B (LSG with concomitant cholecystectomy): High-risk patients with symptomatic stones who underwent LSG and simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
The decision to perform concomitant cholecystectomy was clinical, based on surgeon preference, patient consent, and intraoperative findings. Group A patients were those in whom the surgeon opted to defer cholecystectomy due to concerns about operative time, complexity, patient refusal, or significant comorbidities that might increase the risk of a combined procedure. This selection bias was addressed using propensity-score matching.
A total of 2,512 patients underwent LSG during the study period across the three centres [1,452 at Zagazig University Hospitals, 567 at Al-Ahrar Teaching Hospital, and 493 at Najran University Hospital]. Among them, 805 patients (32.1%) met the high-risk criteria (≥ 3 comorbidities, age ≥ 55 years, or ASA ≥ III) and had symptomatic cholelithiasis. Of these, 518 (64.3%) underwent LSG alone (Group A), and 287 (35.7%) underwent concomitant cholecystectomy (Group B). After excluding 37 patients lost to 30-day follow-up (23 from Group A, 14 from Group B), the final analysis included 495 patients in Group A and 273 patients in Group B. See the flow chart for the allocation process throughout the study Postoperative Care and Outcome Measures All patients followed an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol: early mobilization, multimodal analgesia, and gradual dietary progression. Discharge criteria included tolerance of oral intake, adequate pain control, and afebrile status.
The primary outcome was overall 30 day postoperative complication rate, while secondary outcomes were:
- Operative time (skin incision to skin closure)
- Length of hospital stay (LOS)
- Specific complications: bleeding (requiring transfusion or reoperation), surgical site infection (superficial/deep), staple line leakage, bile leak, trocar site eventration (previously termed "port site hernia")
- 30 day readmission and reoperation rates
- 30 day mortality
- Clavien Dindo grade of complications Data Collection Data were extracted from electronic medical records, operative logs, and outpatient charts using a standardised form. Variables included demographics, BMI, comorbidities, ASA class, preoperative ultrasound findings, operative details, intraoperative events, and 30 day outcomes. Loss to follow up was defined as no documented contact or clinic visit within 30 days post discharge.
Statistical analysis Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median with interquartile range (IQR) and compared using Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages and compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact test (with Fisher's exact test used for comparisons with expected cell counts <5). A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. To account for multiple comparisons, the Bonferroni correction was applied; a corrected p-value <0.003 was considered significant for the 15 comparisons. Post-hoc power analysis was performed: based on the observed overall complication rates (5.5% vs 5.9%) and sample sizes (n=495 and 273), the study had approximately 85% power to detect a 5% absolute difference in overall complications (α=0.05, two-tailed). For rare events (e.g., staple line leakage), the study was underpowered.
To address selection bias, propensity-score matching was performed using the following covariates: age, sex, BMI, number of comorbidities, ASA class, gallbladder wall thickness, and history of acute cholecystitis. Patients were matched 1:1 using a caliper of 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score. Standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated before and after matching; SMD <0.1 indicated good balance.
Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of overall complications, with concomitant cholecystectomy as the primary variable of interest, adjusting for age, sex, BMI, number of comorbidities, ASA class, gallbladder wall thickness, history of acute cholecystitis, and centre. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported.
Sensitivity analyses included: (1) centre-stratified analysis using random-effects meta-analysis; (2) temporal trend analysis by year of surgery; (3) subgroup analyses by each component of the high-risk definition (age ≥55, ≥3 comorbidities, ASA ≥III); (4) exclusion of patients with acute cholecystitis; and (5) stratification by procedural sequence (cholecystectomy-first vs. sleeve-first) in Group B.
All analyses were performed using SPSS version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and R version 4.2.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
- Conditions
- Bariatric Surgery Candidate, Cholelithiases
- Keywords
- Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, concomitant cholecystectomy, symptomatic cholelithiasis, high-risk obesity, comparative study, metabolic and bariatric surgery, Clavien-Dindo classification
- Medical subject headings
- Cholelithiasis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| A | LSG alone | |
| B | LSG with concomitant cholecystectomy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
overall 30 day postoperative complication rate
All patients followed an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol: early mobilization, multimodal analgesia, and gradual dietary progression. Discharge criteria included tolerance of oral intake, adequate pain control, and afebrile status.
The primary outcome was overall 30 day postoperative. Data were extracted from electronic medical records, operative logs, and outpatient charts using a standardised form. Variables included demographics, BMI, comorbidities, ASA class, preoperative ultrasound findings, operative details, intraoperative events, and 30 day outcomes. Loss to follow up was defined as no documented contact or clinic visit within 30 days post discharge.
Measured: 30 day postoperative
Secondary outcomes (3)
Secondary Outcome Measures
the secondary outcomes were: Operative time (skin incision to skin closure)
Measured: 30 days postoperatively
Length of hospital stay (LOS)
Length of hospital stay (LOS) in days
Measured: 30 DAYS POST OPERATIVE
Clavien Dindo grade of complications
to measure The distribution of severity grades
Measured: 30 days post operative
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted19 Aug 2026
- Study start1 Jan 2015
- Primary completion1 Jan 2025
- Study completion1 Jan 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Bariatric Surgery CandidateStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Zagazig UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 2,512 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Zagazig University
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Collaborators
- Najran University
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Mohamed I Farid, Zagazig University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07772440
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ZU-IRP#2398/10-Jun-2026
- Status last verified
- Aug 2026
- First submitted
- 11 Aug 2026
- Last updated
- 19 Aug 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Aug 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- High-Risk Patients With Morbid Obesity and Symptomatic Cholelithiasis: Safety of Concomitant Cholecystectomy During Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy - A Multicenter Retrospective Comparative Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07772440
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ZU-IRP#2398/10-Jun-2026
- Conditions
- Bariatric Surgery Candidate, Cholelithiases
- Keywords
- Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, concomitant cholecystectomy, symptomatic cholelithiasis, high-risk obesity, comparative study, metabolic and bariatric surgery, Clavien-Dindo classification
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 2,512 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Zagazig UniversityOther government
- Collaborators
- Najran University
- Study start
- 1 Jan 2015 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Jan 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Jan 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 19 Aug 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Despite numerous single-center reports and meta-analyses, few studies have directly compared outcomes of LSG with versus without concomitant cholecystectomy exclusively in a high-risk cohort as defined above. To the best of our knowledge, only one prior study (Dincer and Dogan, 2019) specifically examined this high-risk population, and it included only 27 patients in the concomitant group. This multicenter retrospective comparative study - conducted in three research institutes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia - aims to evaluate the safety of concomitant cholecystectomy during LSG in high-risk patients with severe obesity and symptomatic cholelithiasis, using a control group of high-risk patients who underwent LSG alone. Our study provides the largest cohort to date specifically addressing this question in a high-risk population.
Detailed description
Data was collected from the archived medical records of the surgical departments of all the three research centers (in Zagazig city, Egypt, and the Najran University Hospital, Najran city, Saudi Arabia), and were retrospectively analyzed for all patients with inclusion criteria and the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was done, with or without concomitant laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the period from January 2015 to January 2025 (the study period).
Patients were divided into:
- Group A (LSG alone): High-risk patients with symptomatic stones who underwent LSG without cholecystectomy.
- Group B (LSG with concomitant cholecystectomy): High-risk patients with symptomatic stones who underwent LSG and simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
The decision to perform concomitant cholecystectomy was clinical, based on surgeon preference, patient consent, and intraoperative findings. Group A patients were those in whom the surgeon opted to defer cholecystectomy due to concerns about operative time, complexity, patient refusal, or significant comorbidities that might increase the risk of a combined procedure. This selection bias was addressed using propensity-score matching.
A total of 2,512 patients underwent LSG during the study period across the three centres [1,452 at Zagazig University Hospitals, 567 at Al-Ahrar Teaching Hospital, and 493 at Najran University Hospital]. Among them, 805 patients (32.1%) met the high-risk criteria (≥ 3 comorbidities, age ≥ 55 years, or ASA ≥ III) and had symptomatic cholelithiasis. Of these, 518 (64.3%) underwent LSG alone (Group A), and 287 (35.7%) underwent concomitant cholecystectomy (Group B). After excluding 37 patients lost to 30-day follow-up (23 from Group A, 14 from Group B), the final analysis included 495 patients in Group A and 273 patients in Group B. See the flow chart for the allocation process throughout the study Postoperative Care and Outcome Measures All patients followed an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol: early mobilization, multimodal analgesia, and gradual dietary progression. Discharge criteria included tolerance of oral intake, adequate pain control, and afebrile status.
The primary outcome was overall 30 day postoperative complication rate, while secondary outcomes were:
- Operative time (skin incision to skin closure)
- Length of hospital stay (LOS)
- Specific complications: bleeding (requiring transfusion or reoperation), surgical site infection (superficial/deep), staple line leakage, bile leak, trocar site eventration (previously termed "port site hernia")
- 30 day readmission and reoperation rates
- 30 day mortality
- Clavien Dindo grade of complications Data Collection Data were extracted from electronic medical records, operative logs, and outpatient charts using a standardised form. Variables included demographics, BMI, comorbidities, ASA class, preoperative ultrasound findings, operative details, intraoperative events, and 30 day outcomes. Loss to follow up was defined as no documented contact or clinic visit within 30 days post discharge.
Statistical analysis Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median with interquartile range (IQR) and compared using Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages and compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact test (with Fisher's exact test used for comparisons with expected cell counts <5). A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. To account for multiple comparisons, the Bonferroni correction was applied; a corrected p-value <0.003 was considered significant for the 15 comparisons. Post-hoc power analysis was performed: based on the observed overall complication rates (5.5% vs 5.9%) and sample sizes (n=495 and 273), the study had approximately 85% power to detect a 5% absolute difference in overall complications (α=0.05, two-tailed). For rare events (e.g., staple line leakage), the study was underpowered.
To address selection bias, propensity-score matching was performed using the following covariates: age, sex, BMI, number of comorbidities, ASA class, gallbladder wall thickness, and history of acute cholecystitis. Patients were matched 1:1 using a caliper of 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score. Standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated before and after matching; SMD <0.1 indicated good balance.
Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of overall complications, with concomitant cholecystectomy as the primary variable of interest, adjusting for age, sex, BMI, number of comorbidities, ASA class, gallbladder wall thickness, history of acute cholecystitis, and centre. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported.
Sensitivity analyses included: (1) centre-stratified analysis using random-effects meta-analysis; (2) temporal trend analysis by year of surgery; (3) subgroup analyses by each component of the high-risk definition (age ≥55, ≥3 comorbidities, ASA ≥III); (4) exclusion of patients with acute cholecystitis; and (5) stratification by procedural sequence (cholecystectomy-first vs. sleeve-first) in Group B.
All analyses were performed using SPSS version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and R version 4.2.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| A | – | –LSG alone |
| B | – | –LSG with concomitant cholecystectomy |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 60 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
- Study population
- Data was collected from the archived medical records of the surgical departments of all the three research centers (in Zagazig city, Egypt, and the Najran University Hospital, Najran city, Saudi Arabia), and were retrospectively analyzed for all patients with inclusion criteria and the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was done, with or without concomitant laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the period from January 2015 to January 2025 (the study period). Patients were divided into: * Group A (LSG alone): High-risk patients with symptomatic stones who underwent LSG without cholecystectomy. * Group B (LSG with concomitant cholecystectomy): High-risk patients with symptomatic stones who underwent LSG and simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The decision to perform concomitant cholecystectomy was clinical, based on surgeon preference, patient consent, and intraoperative findings.
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- High risk status (any of the following):
- Symptomatic cholelithiasis
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Asymptomatic cholelithiasis
- Prior cholecystectomy
- Choledocholithiasis requiring preoperative ERCP
- Suspected gallbladder malignancy
- Emergency surgery for acute cholecystitis or pancreatitis
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
overall 30 day postoperative complication rate
Time frame: 30 day postoperative
All patients followed an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol: early mobilization, multimodal analgesia, and gradual dietary progression. Discharge criteria included tolerance of oral intake, adequate pain control, and afebrile status. The primary outcome was overall 30 day postoperative. Data were extracted from electronic medical records, operative logs, and outpatient charts using a standardised form. Variables included demographics, BMI, comorbidities, ASA class, preoperative ultrasound findings, operative details, intraoperative events, and 30 day outcomes. Loss to follow up was defined as no documented contact or clinic visit within 30 days post discharge.
3 secondary outcomes
Secondary Outcome Measures
Time frame: 30 days postoperatively
Length of hospital stay (LOS)
Time frame: 30 DAYS POST OPERATIVE
Clavien Dindo grade of complications
Time frame: 30 days post operative
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Aug 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Bariatric Surgery Candidate
Active, not recruiting
Comparing 150cm OAGB With 150cm Biliopancreatic Limb RYGB. A Non-inferiority Trial
Bariatric Surgery Candidate, Obesity
Active, not recruiting
Stepwise PEEP vs Sustained Inflation in Bariatric Surgery Patients
Recruitment, Bariatric Surgery Candidate
RecruitingObservational study
Blood Collection Biorepository for Liver Disease Research
Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis(NASH), Hepatitis C
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Dietary Sugar Absorptive Phenotype for Prediction of Weight Loss Outcome
Obese, Healthy
Active, not recruiting
Evaluation of the Stress Response in Bariatric Surgery With and Without the Use of Opioids
Opioid Use, Unspecified, Bariatric Surgery Candidate
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Bariatric Surgery Candidate and Cholelithiases, run by Zagazig University.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Aug 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
overall 30 day postoperative complication rate (time frame: 30 day postoperative). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Aug 2026.