Mark D Smith1, Abidemi Adeniji2, Abdus S Wahed3, Emma Patterson4, William Chapman5, Anita P Courcoulas6, Gregory Dakin7, David Flum8, Carol McCloskey6, James E Mitchell9, Alfons Pomp7, Myrlene Staten10, Bruce Wolfe11. 1. Legacy Good Samaritan Medical Center, Portland, Oregon. Electronic address: mdsmith2@mac.com. 2. Boehringer Ingelheim, Ridgefield, Connecticut. 3. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Legacy Good Samaritan Medical Center, Portland, Oregon. 5. Department of Surgery, East Carolina University School of Medicine, Greenville, North Carolina. 6. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 7. Cornell University, New York, New York. 8. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 9. Neuropsychiatric Research Institute, Fargo, North Dakota. 10. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Maryland. 11. Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak is one of the most serious complications after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Our objective was to examine the relationship between technical factors and incidence of clinically relevant anastomotic leak after RYGB in longitudinal assessment of bariatric surgery (LABS). The setting of the study was 11 bariatric centers in the United States, university, and private practice. METHODS: Patient characteristics, technical factors of surgery, and postoperative outcomes were assessed by trained researchers using standardized protocols. Correlation of surgical factors of patients undergoing RYGB (n = 4444) with the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leak was assessed by univariate χ(2) analysis. RESULTS: Forty-four participants (1.0%, 95% CI .7%-1.3%) experienced a clinically relevant anastomotic leak. Of these, 39 (89%) underwent abdominal reoperation and 3 (7%) died. Technical factors associated with anastomotic leak were open surgery (P<.0001), revision surgery (P<.0001), and use of an abdominal drain (P = .02). Provocative leak testing, method of gastrojejunostomy, and use of fibrin sealant were not associated with anastomotic leak. CONCLUSIONS: Anastomotic leak after RYGB was rare (1.0%). Most cases required reintervention; however, the majority (93%) recovered from this event. Open surgery, revision surgery, and routine drain placement were associated with increased leak rate. Some of these findings may be due to differences in preoperative patient risk.
BACKGROUND:Anastomotic leak is one of the most serious complications after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Our objective was to examine the relationship between technical factors and incidence of clinically relevant anastomotic leak after RYGB in longitudinal assessment of bariatric surgery (LABS). The setting of the study was 11 bariatric centers in the United States, university, and private practice. METHODS:Patient characteristics, technical factors of surgery, and postoperative outcomes were assessed by trained researchers using standardized protocols. Correlation of surgical factors of patients undergoing RYGB (n = 4444) with the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leak was assessed by univariate χ(2) analysis. RESULTS: Forty-four participants (1.0%, 95% CI .7%-1.3%) experienced a clinically relevant anastomotic leak. Of these, 39 (89%) underwent abdominal reoperation and 3 (7%) died. Technical factors associated with anastomotic leak were open surgery (P<.0001), revision surgery (P<.0001), and use of an abdominal drain (P = .02). Provocative leak testing, method of gastrojejunostomy, and use of fibrin sealant were not associated with anastomotic leak. CONCLUSIONS:Anastomotic leak after RYGB was rare (1.0%). Most cases required reintervention; however, the majority (93%) recovered from this event. Open surgery, revision surgery, and routine drain placement were associated with increased leak rate. Some of these findings may be due to differences in preoperative patient risk.
Authors: Steven H Belle; Paul D Berk; Anita P Courcoulas; David R Flum; Carolyn W Miles; James E Mitchell; Walter J Pories; Bruce M Wolfe; Susan Z Yanovski Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Lars Sjöström; Kristina Narbro; C David Sjöström; Kristjan Karason; Bo Larsson; Hans Wedel; Ted Lystig; Marianne Sullivan; Claude Bouchard; Björn Carlsson; Calle Bengtsson; Sven Dahlgren; Anders Gummesson; Peter Jacobson; Jan Karlsson; Anna-Karin Lindroos; Hans Lönroth; Ingmar Näslund; Torsten Olbers; Kaj Stenlöf; Jarl Torgerson; Göran Agren; Lena M S Carlsson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-08-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Seth J Concors; Brett L Ecker; Richard Maduka; Alyssa Furukawa; Steven E Raper; Daniel D Dempsey; Noel N Williams; Kristoffel R Dumon Journal: Curr Treat Options Neurol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Justin T DesLaurier; Joyce J Chung; Awais K Hussain; Michael J Patetta; Mark H Gonzalez; Menachem M Meller Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev Date: 2020-01-09
Authors: Natalie Liu; Meghan C Cusack; Manasa Venkatesh; Anisa L Pontes; Grace Shea; Dillon C Svoboda; Jacob A Greenberg; Anne O Lidor; Luke M Funk Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Ioannis I Lazaridis; Romano Schneider; Jennifer M Klasen; Tarik Delko; Roman Stocker; Marko Kraljević Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2022-10-15 Impact factor: 3.479
Authors: Laurent Biertho; Frédéric Simon-Hould; Simon Marceau; Stéfane Lebel; Odette Lescelleur; Simon Biron Journal: Ann Surg Innov Res Date: 2016-01-21
Authors: William F Morano; Mohammad F Shaikh; Elizabeth M Gleeson; Alvaro Galvez; Marian Khalili; John Lieb; Elizabeth P Renza-Stingone; Wilbur B Bowne Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 2.754