ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The current standard of care is to perform a postoperative gastrografin study following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) to detect leakage or obstruction. This study evaluated the usefulness of this routine procedure. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed in December 2012. All patients had routine intraoperative methylene blue testing to check for possible leakage from the staple line, and any leaking points were oversewn. We also performed postoperative contrast study (gastrografin) routinely in the first 24-48 h for all patients. RESULTS: From June 2007 to December 2012, 712 cases underwent LSG during the study period. Patients included in this study were 556 women (78.1%) and 156 men (21.9%). The mean age was 35 years. The mean BMI was 48 kg/m2. The operative time was 107 ± 29 min, and there were no conversions to open surgery. Intraoperative methylene blue test detected leakage in 28 cases (3.93%). Postoperative contrast study (gastrografin) was negative for leakage in all cases. Computed tomography (CT) scan with oral contrast study detected leakage in 1.4% (ten cases); none of these cases were detected by regular contrast study. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that intraoperative methylene blue test for leakage is a very sensitive and effective method for detecting leakage during sleeve gastrectomy and should be done routinely in all cases. Routine postoperative contrast study is not needed to detect leakage unless clinically indicated in selected cases, and in such cases contrast-enhanced CT scans are the modality of choice.
Subject(s)
Anastomotic Leak/diagnosis , Diatrizoate Meglumine , Gastrectomy/adverse effects , Gastric Bypass/adverse effects , Laparoscopy/adverse effects , Obesity, Morbid/surgery , Unnecessary Procedures , Adult , Anastomotic Leak/economics , Anastomotic Leak/etiology , Body Mass Index , Contrast Media , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Female , Gastrectomy/economics , Gastric Bypass/economics , Humans , Laparoscopy/economics , Male , Medical Records , Methylene Blue , Obesity, Morbid/complications , Obesity, Morbid/economics , Operative Time , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Retrospective Studies , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Treatment Outcome , Unnecessary Procedures/economicsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) has become an accepted way of management. Patch omentoplasty stayed for decades the main method of repair. The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic simple repair of PPU is as safe as patch omentoplasty. METHODS: Since June 2005, 179 consecutive patients of PPU were treated by laparoscopic repair at our centers. We conducted a retrospective chart review in December 2012. Group I (patch group) included patients who were treated with standard patch omentoplasty. Group II (non-patch group) included patients who received simple repair without patch. RESULTS: From June 2007 to Dec. 2012, 179 consecutive patients of PPU who were treated by laparoscopic repair at our centers were enrolled in this multi-center retrospective study. 108 patients belong to patch group. While 71 patients were treated with laparoscopic simple repair. Operative time was significantly shorter in group II (non patch) (p = 0.01). No patient was converted to laparotomy. There was no difference in age, gender, ASA score, surgical risk (Boey's) score, and incidence of co-morbidities. Both groups were comparable in terms of hospital stay, time to resume oral intake, postoperative complications and surgical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic simple repair of PPU is a safe procedure compared with the traditional patch omentoplasty in presence of certain selection criteria.
