ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Staple line and anastomotic leakages are life-threatening complications after bariatric surgery. Upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract X-ray examination with oral administration of a water-soluble contrast agent can be used to detect leaks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of routine upper GI tract fluoroscopy after primary bariatric surgery. METHODS: Between January 2009 and December 2014 a total of 658 bariatric interventions were carried out of which 442 were primary bariatric operations. Included in this single center study were 307 sleeve gastrectomies and 135 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses. Up to December 2012 upper GI tract fluoroscopy was performed routinely between the first and third postoperative days and the detection of leakages was evaluated. RESULTS: In the investigation period 8 leakages (2.6 %) after sleeve gastrectomy, 1 anastomotic leakage in gastrojejunostomy and 1 in jejunojejunostomy after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass occurred. All patients developed clinical symptoms, such as abdominal pain, tachycardia or fever. In one case the leakage was detected by upper GI fluoroscopy and in nine cases radiological findings were unremarkable. No leakages were detected in asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSION: Routine upper GI fluoroscopy is not recommended for uneventful postoperative courses after primary bariatric surgery.
Subject(s)
Bariatric Surgery , Fluoroscopy , Postoperative Complications/diagnostic imaging , Adult , Anastomosis, Roux-en-Y , Anastomotic Leak/diagnosis , Female , Gastric Bypass , Gastroplasty , Humans , Laparoscopy , Male , Middle Aged , Surgical Staplers , Surgical Wound Dehiscence/diagnosisABSTRACT
AIM: Diabetic foot syndrome (DFS) is a multifactorial debilitating complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). The identification of markers for predicting the risk of developing DFS could help and direct the efforts in the prevention to the highest risk patients. Type I collagen α1 (COL1A1) is the main component of type I collagen, the most abundant structural protein of the extracellular matrix of subcutaneous tissue. COL1A1 polymorphism has been previously investigated with regard to many clinical conditions affecting the bone or the skin. In this prospective study, we have assessed COL1A1 polymorphism in patients without and with DFS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 202 DM patients without and 103 patients with DFS have been recruited. COL1A1 polymorphism, due to a mutation affecting the zinc-finger transcription factor specific protein, has been investigated. The most relevant clinical data (HbA1c, vascular risk factors, insulin treatment) have been collected and analyzed. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in the distribution of the 3 genotypes constituting COL1A1 polymorphism between patients without and with DFS has been observed. Almost all DFS patients had at least one vascular risk factor, with a high rate of arterial hypertension and dyslipidemia. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted set of factors is involved in the development of DFS and only a combination of them may lead to such occurrence. In our DM patient population, COL1A1 polymorphism does not correlate with the occurrence of DFS, which appears to depend mostly on the presence of vascular risk factors. However, the impact of genetic factors affecting other components of the subcutaneous tissue cannot be excluded.
