Moataz Bashah1,2, Nesreen Khidir3, Moamena El-Matbouly4. 1. Department of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery, Hamad General Hospital, P.O. Box 3050, Doha, Qatar. 2. Weill Cornell Medical College, Doha, Qatar. 3. Department of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery, Hamad General Hospital, P.O. Box 3050, Doha, Qatar. Dr_sora4@hotmail.com. 4. Department of General Surgery, Hamad General Hospital, Doha, Qatar.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gastric leak post laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a severe complication that has been reported in 1.5-3% of cases. Management algorithms of leak exist; however, no known factors predict the time to resolution. This study aims to share outcomes of our management algorithm of post LSG leak, including the rate of resolution, complications, admission to the intensive care unit, conversion to other techniques, and mortality. To determine if any factors can predict the resolution time. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who had LSG leaks and was managed in the main tertiary center in Qatar (January 2012-December 2017). RESULTS: A total of seventy-three patients had post LSG leaks. Fifty-six (76.7%) underwent LSG outside our center. Thirteen leaks (17.8%) were after revisional LSG. Laparoscopic exploration was performed in twenty patients (27.4%) and feeding jejunostomy in nine patients (12.3%). Patients were followed up for 12 months. All healed within 8.8 ± 0.72 weeks. The resolution rate was (97.1%) without surgical conversion, while two patients required fistulo-jejunostomy. No patient died. Complications occurred; re-leak (14.9%) and splenic abscess (2.9%). Patients on jejunal feeding had shorter resolution time (HR = 2.7, P = 0.018), while patients on total parenteral nutrition and post-endoscopic dilatation had 66% and 50% increases in the resolution time; (HR = 0.34, P = 0.026) and (HR = 0.5, P = 0.047), respectively. CONCLUSION: Management of post-LSG leak is multimodal. Our clinical experience demonstrated less urge to perform extensive surgical interventions. Patients on enteral feeding had shorter resolution time while patients with sleeve stricture had a longer time to resolution.
INTRODUCTION:Gastric leak post laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a severe complication that has been reported in 1.5-3% of cases. Management algorithms of leak exist; however, no known factors predict the time to resolution. This study aims to share outcomes of our management algorithm of post LSG leak, including the rate of resolution, complications, admission to the intensive care unit, conversion to other techniques, and mortality. To determine if any factors can predict the resolution time. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who had LSG leaks and was managed in the main tertiary center in Qatar (January 2012-December 2017). RESULTS: A total of seventy-three patients had post LSG leaks. Fifty-six (76.7%) underwent LSG outside our center. Thirteen leaks (17.8%) were after revisional LSG. Laparoscopic exploration was performed in twenty patients (27.4%) and feeding jejunostomy in nine patients (12.3%). Patients were followed up for 12 months. All healed within 8.8 ± 0.72 weeks. The resolution rate was (97.1%) without surgical conversion, while two patients required fistulo-jejunostomy. No patient died. Complications occurred; re-leak (14.9%) and splenic abscess (2.9%). Patients on jejunal feeding had shorter resolution time (HR = 2.7, P = 0.018), while patients on total parenteral nutrition and post-endoscopic dilatation had 66% and 50% increases in the resolution time; (HR = 0.34, P = 0.026) and (HR = 0.5, P = 0.047), respectively. CONCLUSION: Management of post-LSG leak is multimodal. Our clinical experience demonstrated less urge to perform extensive surgical interventions. Patients on enteral feeding had shorter resolution time while patients with sleeve stricture had a longer time to resolution.
Entities:
Keywords:
Management of leak post sleeve gastrectomy; Post LSG leak complications; Predictors of resolution time
Authors: Manish Parikh; Reda Issa; Aileen McCrillis; John K Saunders; Aku Ude-Welcome; Michel Gagner Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Reza Fazl Alizadeh; Shiri Li; Colette Inaba; Patrick Penalosa; Marcelo W Hinojosa; Brian R Smith; Michael J Stamos; Ninh T Nguyen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Álvaro A B Ferraz; Fernando Santa-Cruz; João Victor Belfort; Vladimir C T Sá; Luciana T Siqueira; José Guido C Araújo-Júnior Journal: Arq Bras Cir Dig Date: 2022-01-05
Authors: Franck Billmann; Aylin Pfeiffer; Peter Sauer; Adrian Billeter; Christian Rupp; Ronald Koschny; Felix Nickel; Moritz von Frankenberg; Beat Peter Müller-Stich; Anja Schaible Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-11-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Hytham K S Hamid; Sameh H Emile; Alan A Saber; Mürşit Dincer; Diogo T H de Moura; Lennard P L Gilissen; Majid A Almadi; Mauro Montuori; Michel Vix; Luis G S Perisse; Nicolás Quezada; Fabio Garofalo; Radu Pescarus Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 4.584