4.4 Article

Large Bariatric-Specific Stents and Over-the-Scope Clips in the Management of Post-Bariatric Surgery Leaks

期刊

OBESITY SURGERY
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 15-24

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-017-2808-1

关键词

Bariatric surgery; Anastomotic leak; Sleeve gastrectomy; Endoscopic; Leak; Esophageal stents; Enteral stents; Mega stent

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Endoscopic stents are successful in the management of surgical leaks; however, stent migration remains a significant problem. In this study, we present our approach depending on a large bariatrics-specific stent (Mega stent) and over-the-scope clips in the management of post-bariatric surgery leaks. A retrospective analysis of all patients with post-bariatric surgery leaks treated at our institution using an approach reliant on Mega stents and over-the-scope clips was conducted. Potential factors associated with procedure success and occurrence of complications were also evaluated. A total of 81 stents were inserted in 62 patients with post-bariatric surgery leaks, 46 sleeve gastrectomies (73%) and 16 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (27%). Over-the-scope clips were applied in 29 patients (46%). Leak closure was achieved in 51 patients (82%). Median number of procedures per patient was 3 (range 2-8). Complications included the following: stent migration (11/62, 18%), intolerance necessitating premature removal (7/62, 11%), esophageal stricture (8/62, 13%), bleeding (4/62, 6%), perforation (4/62, 6%). One stent-induced mortality was encountered (bleeding). The presence of open surgery (vs laparoscopic) was significantly associated with the occurrence of stent-induced complications (p 0.002). The approach combining Mega stents and over-the-scope clips is highly effective in the management of post-bariatric surgery leaks and is associated with a low rate of stent migration and a low number of procedures and stents per patient. Mega stents, however, should be used with great caution due to the significant morbidity associated with their use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据