Lumbosacral nerve root anomalies (LNRA) refers to the abnormality of lumbosacral nerve root in morphology, course and initial position, which may be related to the abnormal migration of nerve root in embryo. Imaging examination is a commonly used method for localization and qualitative diagnosis of LNRA. Clinically, many classification systems have been established based on imaging results, autopsy reports and Book observations. However, the lack of evaluation on the advantages and disadvantages of each classification is not conducive to the development of clinical work. In this paper, the classification and characteristics of LNRA at home and abroad were reviewed, and the advantages and limitations of each classification were evaluated. Through the literature retrieval and summary, it is not reliable to design the corresponding classification based on the imaging results. Not only is the detection rate of MRI as the preferred examination method far lower than that of autopsy, but also it is not an intuitive study of the lesions, and its authenticity is questionable. Based on the classification of autopsy results, the spinal cord is directly stripped in the study, excluding the surrounding soft tissue and bone marrow. The interference of spinal bone structure is more conducive to the comprehensive observation of variation, which has a certain guiding significance for clinical; based on the classification of intraoperative observation results, the number of research samples is large, easy to obtain, and there are matching imaging data to do the follow-up comparative study, among which the Neidre classification is themost widely used classification, which provides considerable convenience for clinical work. LNRA may not be treated as a common disease due to the limitation of technology and lack of understanding. The lack of specific symptoms and the characteristics of combined compression will affect the detection rate. In terms of treatment, traditional discectomy and spinal canal decompression cannot meet the clinical needs. More new surgical methods need to be proposed to improve the prognosis and quality of life of patients.

Objective:To compare the short-term efficacy of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) combined with sharp His angle reconstruction (LSG-His) versus traditional LSG.Methods:In this retrospective cohort study we collected clinical data of patients with obesity who had undergone LSG or LSG-His in the Department of General Surgery, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, from January to June 2022. After excluding patients with incomplete follow-up data and those with hiatal hernia, 83 obese patients, of which 39 who had undergone LSG (LSG group) and 44 who had undergone LSG-His (LSG-His group), were included in the study. The basic steps in LSG-His are the same as in conventional LSG. After continuous suturing of the gastric staple line, one stitch is placed between the proximal side of the gastric greater curvature staple line and the proximal side of the gastric fundus posterior wall with the left diaphragm, and another stitch between the right side of the gastric fundus and the esophagus, reconstructing the sharp His angle. Clinical data, postoperative complications, and follow-up data on weight loss and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-discharge were compared between the two groups. GERD symptoms were assessed using the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire and Reflux Diagnostic Questionnaire.Results:There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics, length of hospital stay, hospitalization costs, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative nausea and vomiting, dysphagia, or postoperative complications (all P>0.05). Compared with the LSG group, the LSG-His group had significantly longer operative times (92 [80, 100] minutes vs. 80 [70, 100] minutes, U=2.227, P=0.026), higher postoperative 24-hour pain scores (5.2±1.8 vs. 4.3±1.9, t=-2.065, P=0.041), and higher rates of morphine use (70.5% [31/44] vs. 46.2% [18/39], χ2=4.519, P=0.025). The incidence of new-onset GERD 12 months postoperatively was significantly lower in the LSG-His than the LSG group (10.7% [3/28] vs. 61.3% [19/31], χ2=14.00, P<0.001). According to changes in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire and Reflux Diagnostic Questionnaire scores, the LSG-His group also had significantly lower rates of exacerbation of GERD (2/16 vs. 5/8, χ2=4.27, P=0.021) and higher rates of GERD remission (12/16 vs. 2/8, χ2=3.62, P=0.032) than did the LSG group. Additionally, excess weight loss rates were significantly higher in the LSG-His group at 3 months [(54.7± 18.7)% vs. (46.5±15.0)% , t=-2.166, P=0.033], 6 months [(73.8±24.7)% vs. (64.0±19.1)% , t=-2.018, P=0.047], and 12 months [(82.9±26.7)% vs. (72.2±19.3)%, t=-2.063, P=0.042] than in the LSG group. Conclusion:Compared with LSG, LSG-His is safe and feasible and achieves better short-term control of postoperative GERD and more effective weight loss. Further large-scale, long-term, prospective studies are needed to confirm the long-term efficacy of LSG-His.

Objective:To compare the short-term efficacy of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) combined with sharp His angle reconstruction (LSG-His) versus traditional LSG.Methods:In this retrospective cohort study we collected clinical data of patients with obesity who had undergone LSG or LSG-His in the Department of General Surgery, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, from January to June 2022. After excluding patients with incomplete follow-up data and those with hiatal hernia, 83 obese patients, of which 39 who had undergone LSG (LSG group) and 44 who had undergone LSG-His (LSG-His group), were included in the study. The basic steps in LSG-His are the same as in conventional LSG. After continuous suturing of the gastric staple line, one stitch is placed between the proximal side of the gastric greater curvature staple line and the proximal side of the gastric fundus posterior wall with the left diaphragm, and another stitch between the right side of the gastric fundus and the esophagus, reconstructing the sharp His angle. Clinical data, postoperative complications, and follow-up data on weight loss and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-discharge were compared between the two groups. GERD symptoms were assessed using the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire and Reflux Diagnostic Questionnaire.Results:There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics, length of hospital stay, hospitalization costs, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative nausea and vomiting, dysphagia, or postoperative complications (all P>0.05). Compared with the LSG group, the LSG-His group had significantly longer operative times (92 [80, 100] minutes vs. 80 [70, 100] minutes, U=2.227, P=0.026), higher postoperative 24-hour pain scores (5.2±1.8 vs. 4.3±1.9, t=-2.065, P=0.041), and higher rates of morphine use (70.5% [31/44] vs. 46.2% [18/39], χ2=4.519, P=0.025). The incidence of new-onset GERD 12 months postoperatively was significantly lower in the LSG-His than the LSG group (10.7% [3/28] vs. 61.3% [19/31], χ2=14.00, P<0.001). According to changes in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire and Reflux Diagnostic Questionnaire scores, the LSG-His group also had significantly lower rates of exacerbation of GERD (2/16 vs. 5/8, χ2=4.27, P=0.021) and higher rates of GERD remission (12/16 vs. 2/8, χ2=3.62, P=0.032) than did the LSG group. Additionally, excess weight loss rates were significantly higher in the LSG-His group at 3 months [(54.7± 18.7)% vs. (46.5±15.0)% , t=-2.166, P=0.033], 6 months [(73.8±24.7)% vs. (64.0±19.1)% , t=-2.018, P=0.047], and 12 months [(82.9±26.7)% vs. (72.2±19.3)%, t=-2.063, P=0.042] than in the LSG group. Conclusion:Compared with LSG, LSG-His is safe and feasible and achieves better short-term control of postoperative GERD and more effective weight loss. Further large-scale, long-term, prospective studies are needed to confirm the long-term efficacy of LSG-His.