OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) patients based on three types of staple line reinforcement (SLR): seromuscular suturing (imbrication), absorbable polymer membrane (APM), and bovine pericardial strips (BPS). BACKGROUND: LSG represented 67.3 % of bariatric procedures performed in Michigan in 2013, and its prevalence continues to rise. Multiple studies suggest that SLR can potentially reduce the incidence of complications. However, the current literature is limited secondary to a small sample size and is not conclusive on which type of reinforcement technique is best in reducing the risk of complications. METHODS: The charts of 1,526 consecutive patients who underwent an LSG from January 2005 to January 2013, by four experienced surgeons, were reviewed. Data include patient demographics, reinforcement technique utilized, length of hospitalization, complications, hospital readmission rates, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 1,502 patients who underwent an LSG and met inclusion/exclusion criteria, 373 (24.8 %) were reinforced using imbrication, 269 (17.9 %) with BPS, and 860 (57.3 %) with APM. Patient demographics and complication rates were similar between groups. A statistically significant difference occurred in length of stay, readmission, and reoperation rates (p < 0.01). Length of stay was shortest in the BPS group, but readmission and reoperation rates were statistically higher, and there was a trend towards increased leaks (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: A comparison of imbrication, BPS, and APM demonstrated significantly increased readmission and reoperation rates with a trend towards increased leak rates with the use of BPS in LSG patients. Hemorrhage was not statistically different between the three reinforcement techniques.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) patients based on three types of staple line reinforcement (SLR): seromuscular suturing (imbrication), absorbable polymer membrane (APM), and bovine pericardial strips (BPS). BACKGROUND: LSG represented 67.3 % of bariatric procedures performed in Michigan in 2013, and its prevalence continues to rise. Multiple studies suggest that SLR can potentially reduce the incidence of complications. However, the current literature is limited secondary to a small sample size and is not conclusive on which type of reinforcement technique is best in reducing the risk of complications. METHODS: The charts of 1,526 consecutive patients who underwent an LSG from January 2005 to January 2013, by four experienced surgeons, were reviewed. Data include patient demographics, reinforcement technique utilized, length of hospitalization, complications, hospital readmission rates, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 1,502 patients who underwent an LSG and met inclusion/exclusion criteria, 373 (24.8 %) were reinforced using imbrication, 269 (17.9 %) with BPS, and 860 (57.3 %) with APM. Patient demographics and complication rates were similar between groups. A statistically significant difference occurred in length of stay, readmission, and reoperation rates (p < 0.01). Length of stay was shortest in the BPS group, but readmission and reoperation rates were statistically higher, and there was a trend towards increased leaks (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: A comparison of imbrication, BPS, and APM demonstrated significantly increased readmission and reoperation rates with a trend towards increased leak rates with the use of BPS in LSG patients. Hemorrhage was not statistically different between the three reinforcement techniques.
Authors: Todd E Simon; Joshua A Scott; Joel R Brockmeyer; Robert C Rice; James D Frizzi; Farah A Husain; Yong U Choi Journal: Am Surg Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: F de la Portilla; A P Zbar; R Rada; J Vega; N Cisneros; V H Maldonado; A Utrera; E Espinosa Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2006-11-27 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Michael Glaysher; Omar A Khan; Nigel Tapiwa Mabvuure; Andrew Wan; Marcus Reddy; Georgios Vasilikostas Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: Reuben I Thaker; Brent D Matthews; David C Linehan; Steven M Strasberg; J Chris Eagon; William G Hawkins Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Jason C Pradarelli; Oliver A Varban; Amir A Ghaferi; Matthew Weiner; Arthur M Carlin; Justin B Dimick Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 3.982