4.4 Review

Leaks after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: overview of pathogenesis and risk factors

Journal

LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
Volume 401, Issue 6, Pages 757-766

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-016-1464-6

Keywords

Ideal sleeve gastrectomy; Leak; Fistula; Pathogenesis; Technical tips

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Leak is the second most common cause of death after bariatric surgery. The leak rate after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) ranges between 1.1 and 5.3 %. The aim of the paper is to provide an overview of the current pathogenic and promoting factors of leakage after LSG on the basis of recent literature review and to report the evidence based preventive measures. Risk factors and pathogenesis of leakage after LSG were examined based on an extensive review of literature and evidence based analysis of the most recent published studies using Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine, 2011, levels of evidence. Pathogenesis of leakage after LSG can be attributed to mechanical or ischemic causes. Many factors can predispose to leakage after LSG which are either technically related or patient related. Awareness of these predisposing factors and technical tips may decrease the incidence of leakage. This review reports factors promoting leak and gives technical recommendations to avoid leak after LSG based on the available evidence and expert consensus which encompasses: (1) use a bougie size aeyen40 Fr, EL:1, (2) begin the gastric transection 5-6 cm from the pylorus, EL:2-3, (3) use appropriate cartridge colors from antrum to fundus, EL:1, (4) reinforce the staple line with buttress material, EL:1, (5) follow a proper staple line, (6) remove the crotch staples, EL:4, (7) maintain proper traction on the stomach before firing, (8) stay away from the angle of His at least 1 cm, EL:1, (9) check the bleeding from the staple line, (10) perform an intraoperative methylene blue test, EL:4.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available