Background
Staple-line leaks following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) remain a concerning complication. Staple-line buttressing is largely adopted as an acceptable reinforcement but data ...regarding leaks have been equivocal. This study compared staple-line leaks in five reinforcement options during LSG: no reinforcement (NO-SLR), oversewing (suture), nonabsorbable bovine pericardial strips (BPS), tissue sealant or fibrin glue (Seal), or absorbable polymer membrane (APM).
Methods
This systematic review study of articles published between 2012 and 2016 regarding LSG leak rates aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Variables of interest included leak rates, bleeding, and complications in addition to surgical and population parameters. An independent Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the number of patients with and without leaks for the different reinforcement options.
Results
Of the 1633 articles identified, 148 met inclusion criteria and represented 40,653 patients. Differences in age (older in APM;
p
= 0.001), starting body mass index (lower in Suture;
p
= 0.008), and distance from pylorus (closer in BPS;
p
= 0.04) were observed between groups, but mean bougie size was equivalent. The overall leak rate of 1.5% (607 leaks) ranged from 0.7% for APM (significantly lower than all groups;
p
≤ 0.007 for next lowest leak rate) to 2.7% (BPS).
Conclusions
This systematic review of staple-line leaks following LSG demonstrated a significantly lower rate using APM staple-line reinforcement as compared to oversewing, use of sealants, BPS reinforcement, or no reinforcement. Variation in surgical technique may also contribute to leak rates.
For the purpose of building best practice guidelines, an international expert panel was surveyed in 2014 and compared with the 2011 Sleeve Gastrectomy Consensus and with survey data culled from a ...general surgeon audience.
To measure advancement on aspects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and identify current best practices.
International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) 2014, Fifth International Summit for Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy, Montréal, Canada.
In August 2014, expert surgeons (based on having performed>1000 cases) completed an online anonymous survey. Identical survey questions were then administered to general surgeon attendees.
One hundred twenty bariatric surgeons completed the expert survey, along with 103 bariatric surgeons from IFSO 2014 general surgeon audience. The following indications were endorsed: as a stand-alone procedure (97.5%); in high-risk patients (92.4%); in kidney and liver transplant candidates (91.6%); in patients with metabolic syndrome (83.8%); body mass index 30-35 with associated co-morbidities (79.8%); in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (87.4%); and in the elderly (89.1%). Significant differences existed between the expert and general surgeons groups in endorsing several contraindications: Barrett's esophagus (80.0% versus 31.3% P<.001), gastroesophageal reflux disease (23.3% versus 52.5% P<.001), hiatal hernias (11.7% versus 54.0% P<.001), and body mass index>60 kg/m(2) (5.0% versus 28.0% P<.001). Average reported weight loss outcomes 5 years postoperative were significantly higher for the expert surgeons group (P = .005), as were reported stricture (P = .001) and leakage (P = .005) rates. The following significant differences exist between 2014 and 2011 expert surgeons: Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease should have pH and manometry study pre-laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (32.8% versus 50.0%; P = .033); it is important to take down the vessels before resection (88.1% versus 81.8%; P = .025); it is acceptable to buttress (81.4% versus 77.3%; P<.001); the smaller the bougie size and tighter the sleeve, the higher the incidence of leaks (78.8% versus 65.2%; P = .006).
This study highlights areas of new and improved best practices on various aspects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy performance among experts from 2011 and 2014 and among the current general surgeon population.
The study compared laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) staple-line leak rates of 4 prevalent surgical options: no reinforcement, oversewing, nonabsorbable bovine pericardial strips (BPS), and ...absorbable polymer membrane (APM).
LSG is a multipurpose bariatric/metabolic procedure with effectiveness proven through the intermediate term. Staple-line leak is a severe complication of LSG for which no definitive method of prevention has been identified.
The systematic review study design was employed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement screening guidelines. Inclusion criteria centered on variables potentially relevant to LSG leak: leak rate, age, gender, calibrating bougie size, distance between pylorus and gastric transection line, overall complication rate, and mortality. Analysis of variance models were used to explore differences in select demographic and surgical technique variables characterizing each reinforcement group. An omnibus χ2 test followed by independent Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare leak rates.
There were 659 articles identified; 41 duplicates removed. Of 618 remaining articles, 324 did not meet inclusion criteria. Of the 294 remaining articles, 206 were eliminated (kin studies, those not reporting staple-line or leak incidence, those reporting discontinued products). There were 88 papers included in the analysis. Statistically significant differences were found between groups across demographic and surgical variables studied (p<0.001). There were 191 leaks in 8,920 patients; overall leak rate 2.1%. Leak rates ranged from 1.09% (APM) to 3.3% (BPS); APM leak rate was significantly lower than other groups (p< 0.05).
Systematic review of 88 included studies representing 8,920 patients found that the leak rate in LSG was significantly lower using APM staple-line reinforcement than oversewing, BPS reinforcement, or no reinforcement.
Background
Leaks after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) may be due to a mismatch between staple height and tissue thickness. The aim of this study was to determine the range of gastric thicknesses in three ...areas of stapling.
Methods
SG was performed using a 40-Fr suction calibration system 4 cm from the pylorus. Measurement of combined gastric walls was accomplished with an applied pressure of 8 g/mm
2
on the fundus, midbody, and antrum.
Results
We enrolled 26 SG patients (15 women, 11 men; mean age 36.8 years). Body mass index (BMI) averaged 45.3 kg/m
2
overall, 44.7 kg/m
2
for males and 45.7 kg/m
2
for females. Although male patients had a thicker stomach antrum than female patients (3.12 vs. 3.09 mm), the midbody (2.57 vs. 3.09 mm) and proximal areas (1.67 vs. 1.72 mm) were thicker in female patients. However, some maximum fundus thicknesses were up to 2.83 mm in females and 2.28 mm in males. Some antra were as thick as 4.07 mm in females and 5.39 mm in males. Also, men had a longer average staple line (22.95 vs. 19.90 cm).
Conclusion
Because of the range of gastric thicknesses, a single staple height cannot be used to appose the full range of gastric wall thicknesses without potentially causing necrosis or poor apposition. To help avoid leaks, a thickness calibration device is needed to determine correct staple height.
Background
LSG has been increasingly performed. Long-term follow-up is necessary.
Methods
During the
Fourth International Consensus Summit on LSG
in New York Dec. 2012, an online questionnaire ...(SurveyMonkey®) was filled out by 130 surgeons experienced in LSG. The survey was submitted directly to the statisticians.
Results
The 130 surgeons performed 354.9 ± SD 453 LSGs/surgeon (median 175), for a total of 46,133 LSGs. The LSGs had been performed over 4.9 ± 2.7 year (range 1–10). Of the 46,133 LSGs, 0.2 ± 1.0 % (median 0, range 0–10 %) were converted to an open operation. LSG was intended as the sole operation in 93.1 ± 14.8 %; in 3.0 ± 6.3 %, a second stage became necessary. Of the 130 surgeons, 40 (32 %) use a 36F bougie, which was most common (range 32–50F). Staple-line is reinforced by 79 %; of these, 57 % use a buttress and 43 % over-sew. Mean %EWL at year 1 was 59.3 %; year 2, 59.0 %; year 3, 54.7 %; year 4, 52.3 %; year 5, 52.4 %; and year 6, 50.6 %. If a second-stage operation becomes necessary, preference was: RYGB 46 %, duodenal switch 24 %, re-sleeve 20 %, single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass 3 %, sleeve plication 3 %, minigastric bypass 3 %, non-adjustable band 2 %, and side-to-side jejunoileal anastomosis 1 %. Complications were: high leak 1.1 %, hemorrhage 1.8 %, and stenosis at lower sleeve 0.9 %. Postoperative gastroesophageal reflux occurred in 7.9 ± 8.2 % but was variable (0–30 %). Mortality was 0.33 ± 1.6 %, which translates to ∼152 deaths. Eighty-nine percent order multivitamins (including vitamin D, calcium, and iron) and 72 % order B
12.
A PPI is ordered by 29 % for 1 month, 29 % for 3 months, and others for 1–12 months depending on the case.
Conclusions
LSG was relatively safe. Further long-term surveillance is necessary.
Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been performed for morbid obesity in the past 10 years. LSG was originally intended as a first-stage procedure in high-risk patients but has become a ...stand-alone operation for many bariatric surgeons. Ongoing review is necessary regarding the durability of the weight loss, complications, and need for second-stage operations.
The first International Summit for LSG was held in October 2007, the second in March 2009, and this third in December 2010. There were presentations by experts, and, to provide a consensus, a questionnaire was completed by 88 attendees who had >1 year (mean 3.6 ± 1.5, range 1-8) of experience with LSG.
The results of the questionnaire were based on 19,605 LSGs performed within 3.6 ± 1.5 years (228.8 ± 275.0 LSGs/surgeon). LSG had been intended as the sole operation in 86.4% of the cases; in these, a second-second stage became necessary in 2.2%. LSG was completed laparoscopically in 99.7% of the cases. The mean percentage of excess weight loss at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years was 62.7%, 64.7%, 64.0%, 57.3%, and 60.0%, respectively. The bougie size was 28-60F (mean 36F, 70% blunt tip). Resection began 1.5-7.0 cm (mean 4.8) proximal to the pylorus. Of the surgeons, 67.1% reinforced the staple line, 57% with buttress material and 43% with oversewing. The respondents excised an estimated 92.9% ± 8.0% (median 95.0%) of fundus (i.e., a tiny portion is maintained lateral to the angle of His). A drain is left by 57.6%, usually closed suction. High leaks occurred in 1.3% of cases (range 0-10%); lower leaks occurred in .5%. Intraluminal bleeding occurred in 2.0% of cases. The mortality rate was .1% ± .3%.
According to the questionnaire, presentations, and debates, the weight loss and improvement in diabetes appear to be better than with laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and on par with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. High leaks are infrequent but problematic.
Background
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is probably the main drawback of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Herein, we critically discuss the issue and report the results of the first ...international consensus conference held in Montpellier, France, during June 2019.
Methods
Fifty international bariatric experts from 25 countries convened for 2 days for interactive discussions, and to formulate the most relevant questions by electronically submitting 55 preliminary questions to panelists. Following the meeting, a final drafted questionnaire comprised of 41 questions was sent to all experts via e-mail.
Results
Forty-six experts responded (92%). Esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy was considered mandatory before (92%) and after (78%) surgery. No consensus was achieved as to time intervals after surgery and the role of specialized tests for GERD. Higher degrees of erosive esophagitis (94%) and Barrett’s esophagus (96%) were viewed as contra-indications for LSG. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was recommended in postoperative patients with uncontrolled GERD and insufficient (84%) or sufficient (76%) weight loss and Barrett’s esophagus (78%). Hiatal hernia (HH) repair was deemed necessary even in asymptomatic patients without GERD (80% for large and 67% for small HH). LSG with fundoplication in patients with GERD was considered by 77.3% of panelists.
Conclusions
The importance of pre- and postoperative endoscopy has been emphasized. The role of specialized tests for GERD and the exact surveillance programs need to be further defined. LSG is viewed as contra-indicated in higher degrees of endoscopic and clinical GERD. LSG with anti-reflux fundoplication emerges as a new valid option in patients with GERD.
PDF
