Back to Search Start Over

Management of the staple line in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: comparison of three different reinforcement techniques

Authors :
José Manuel Fort
Amador García Ruiz de Gordejuela
Carlos Petrola
José María Balibrea
Enric Caubet
Manel Armengol
Marc Beisani
Ramon Vilallonga
Oscar Gonzalez
Source :
Surgical endoscopy. 35(7)
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

Nowadays, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is one of the most widely performed bariatric procedures. Different techniques have been described to reduce the rate of complications associated with the staple line, but no consensus has been reached. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of surgical complications after LSG with three different approaches to the staple line. A retrospective matched analysis was performed, comparing three groups of 100 patients each: partial oversewing of the staple line (PO group), complete oversewing of the staple line (CO group), and reinforcement with buttress material (BM group). Operative time, early surgical complications (superficial surgical site infection, leakage and hemorrhage), length of stay, weight evolution, and revisional surgery rates were analyzed. All three groups were comparable at baseline. All surgeries were performed laparoscopically. Operative time was significantly longer in the CO group (PO: 84.2 ± 22; CO: 104.7 ± 17; BM: 82.3 ± 22; PO vs CO, p = 0.021; BM vs CO, p = 0.011). There were no differences in length of stay, early surgical complications, and weight outcomes at 36 months between the groups. The need for a revisional surgery was significantly higher in the CO group compared to the PO group (PO: 3%; CO: 14%; BM: 9%; PO vs CO, p = 0.005). The CO group required a longer operative time. There were no differences in early surgical complications between the groups. The CO group had a higher need for revisional surgery than the PO group.

Details

ISSN :
14322218
Volume :
35
Issue :
7
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Surgical endoscopy
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....89982f35f13f5cfb10bb0bee2c764b04