4.1 Article

Reinforcement of the Staple Line during Gastric Sleeve: A Comparison of Buttressing or Oversewing, versus No Reinforcement- A Single-Institution Study

Journal

AMERICAN SURGEON
Volume 84, Issue 5, Pages 690-694

Publisher

SOUTHEASTERN SURGICAL CONGRESS

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [T32HL007849]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a well-established treatment for morbid obesity. Staple line leak (SLL) remains one of the most serious and life-threatening complications after LSG; however, no consensus exists for prevention. The purpose of this study is to review and compare the different methods of staple line management used at our institution. Retrospective review of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors was performed for all patients undergoing LSG at a single institution between September 2010 and August 2015. Primary outcome measure was SLL by reinforcement method (none/Seamguard/Oversewing). A total of 256 patients undergoing LSG were included, 197 (76.95%) were women and 233 (87.11%) were whites. The patients had a mean age of 44.64 years and body mass index of 49.24 kg/m(-2). Among those patients, 145 (56.64%) had staple line reinforced with suture (28, 10.94%) or Gore Seamguard (115, 44.92%) and 111 (43.36%) had no reinforcement, with no difference in baseline factors between the groups (all P > 0.05). Gastric leaks were identified in nine patients (3.52%) with no difference between reinforcement (2.7 vs 2.1%, P = 0.54) or leak test method (air vs methylene blue). However, oversewing the staple line was associated with higher incidence of stenosis (P < 0.01). SLL after LSG is a serious complication with significant morbidity and mortality. This study demonstrated that staple line reinforcement does not provide significant leak reduction but does reduce intraoperative staple line bleeding. In addition, oversewing the staple line was associated with postoperative sleeve stenosis without added benefits.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available