4.4 Article

Differences in Early Complications between Circular and Linear Stapled Gastrojejunostomy in Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass

期刊

OBESITY SURGERY
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 599-603

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-013-1139-0

关键词

LGBP; Gastric bypass; Laparoscopic gastric bypass; Gastrojejunostomy; Circular stapler; Linear stapler; Port site infections; Surgical site infections; Stomal ulcer; Complication

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGBP) is the most common bariatric procedure worldwide. The gastrojejunostomy can be stapled with a circular or linear stapler, each with their own specific advantages. We have evaluated differences in postoperative complications between the two techniques. We studied operative data and postoperative complications in 560 patients (79.8 % females, median age 42, BMI 42.5) operated with LGBP between 2008 and 2012 at our center. The gastrojejunostomy was initially performed using a circular stapler (CS) in 288 patients and later by linear stapler (LS) in 272. Complications, operative time, and length of stay were retrieved from our database. The risk of developing a port site infection was evaluated with multivariate logistic regression. Port site infections were more common with CS than LS, 5.2 and 0.4 %, respectively (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis demonstrated CS to be an independent risk factor for port site infections (OR 16.3 (2.09-126), p < 0.01), as well as for stomal ulcers (OR 10.1, 1.15-89, p = 0.04). Major postoperative complications remained unchanged (anastomotic leak 1.0 vs. 1.1 %, abscess 0.7 vs. 0.4 %), while operative time and length of stay were found to be shorter using the LS (122 vs. 83 min, p < 0.001 and 4 vs. 3 days, p < 0.001). The linear stapled technique yielded lower incidence of port site infections, probably by avoiding the passage of a contaminated circular stapler through the abdominal wall. No difference in major complications was seen, but operative time was shorter using a linear stapler instead of a circular stapler.

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