Erik Stenberg1, Johan Ottosson2, Eva Szabo2, Ingmar Näslund2. 1. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, SE-70185, Örebro, Sweden. erik.stenberg@regionorebrolan.se. 2. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, SE-70185, Örebro, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Routine closure of mesenteric defects is generally considered standard part of laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery today. Controversy still exists regarding the optimal method for mesenteric defects closure. The objective was to compare different methods for mesenteric defects handling in laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery. METHODS: Primary laparoscopic gastric bypass procedures from 2010 until 2015 reported to the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry (SOReg), where the mesenteric defects closure method was identifiable, were included. Main outcome measures were serious postoperative complication within 30 days after surgery, and reoperation for small bowel obstruction within 5 years after surgery. Quality-of-life before and after surgery, duration of surgery, and risk factors for complication were also analyzed. Information on operation for small bowel obstruction was based on data from the SOReg, the Swedish National Patient Register and reviews of hospital charts. RESULTS: In all, 34,707 patients were included. Serious postoperative complication occurred in 174 (2.9%) patients with sutures, in 592 (3.1%, adjusted p = 0.079) with clips, and 278 (3.1%; adjusted p = 0.658) in the non-closure group. Reoperation for small bowel obstruction within 5 years after surgery was lower with sutures (cumulative incidence 6.9%) and clips (cumulative incidence 7.3%; adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.32, p = 0.026), compared to non-closure (cumulative incidence 11.2%; adjusted HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.44-1.84, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Closure of the mesenteric defects using either non-absorbable metal clips or non-absorbable running sutures is a safe and effective measure to reduce the risk for small bowel obstruction after laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery. Sutures appear slightly more effective and should remain gold standard for mesenteric defects closure.
BACKGROUND: Routine closure of mesenteric defects is generally considered standard part of laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery today. Controversy still exists regarding the optimal method for mesenteric defects closure. The objective was to compare different methods for mesenteric defects handling in laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery. METHODS: Primary laparoscopic gastric bypass procedures from 2010 until 2015 reported to the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry (SOReg), where the mesenteric defects closure method was identifiable, were included. Main outcome measures were serious postoperative complication within 30 days after surgery, and reoperation for small bowel obstruction within 5 years after surgery. Quality-of-life before and after surgery, duration of surgery, and risk factors for complication were also analyzed. Information on operation for small bowel obstruction was based on data from the SOReg, the Swedish National Patient Register and reviews of hospital charts. RESULTS: In all, 34,707 patients were included. Serious postoperative complication occurred in 174 (2.9%) patients with sutures, in 592 (3.1%, adjusted p = 0.079) with clips, and 278 (3.1%; adjusted p = 0.658) in the non-closure group. Reoperation for small bowel obstruction within 5 years after surgery was lower with sutures (cumulative incidence 6.9%) and clips (cumulative incidence 7.3%; adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.32, p = 0.026), compared to non-closure (cumulative incidence 11.2%; adjusted HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.44-1.84, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Closure of the mesenteric defects using either non-absorbable metal clips or non-absorbable running sutures is a safe and effective measure to reduce the risk for small bowel obstruction after laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery. Sutures appear slightly more effective and should remain gold standard for mesenteric defects closure.
Authors: Matthew M Hutter; Sheldon Randall; Shukri F Khuri; William G Henderson; William M Abbott; Andrew L Warshaw Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Lars Sjöström; Anna-Karin Lindroos; Markku Peltonen; Jarl Torgerson; Claude Bouchard; Björn Carlsson; Sven Dahlgren; Bo Larsson; Kristina Narbro; Carl David Sjöström; Marianne Sullivan; Hans Wedel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Erik Stenberg; Eva Szabo; Göran Ågren; Johan Ottosson; Richard Marsk; Hans Lönroth; Lars Boman; Anders Magnuson; Anders Thorell; Ingmar Näslund Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Erik Stenberg; Eva Szabo; Göran Agren; Erik Näslund; Lars Boman; Ami Bylund; Jan Hedenbro; Anna Laurenius; Göran Lundegårdh; Hans Lönroth; Peter Möller; Magnus Sundbom; Johan Ottosson; Ingmar Näslund Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Romano Schneider; Michaela Schulenburg; Marko Kraljević; Jennifer M Klasen; Thomas Peters; Bettina Wölnerhanssen; Ralph Peterli Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2021-05-22 Impact factor: 3.445