Gastroesophageal stenting for the management of post sleeve gastrectomy leak. A single institution experience

Gastroesophageal Stents for the Management of Post Sleeve Gastrectomy Leakage: Interventional Radiology Experience

Objective The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of retrievable, self-expandable gastroesophageal stents to manage gastric leaks post sleeve gastrectomy by interventional radiology (IR).

Methods This is a retrospective study of patients with gastric leaks post sleeve gastrectomy who were managed with gastroesophageal stent placement. The diameters of the stents ranged from 23 to 30 mm and the lengths 12.5 to 24 cm.

Results Thirty-one patients (mean age, 32.4 ± 7.97 years) were included in the study, and 46 stents were placed. The total average stenting time was 59.1 ± 35.5 days. Leakage resolved in 93.5% of the patients. Thirty-eight (82.6%) of the stents were retrieved by IR, and the remaining stents were retrieved under endoscopic visualization. Stricture occurred as a complication in four patients: three of which were treated with stenting (one by IR and two by endoscopy) and one required esophagoplasty. Six patients experienced stent migration, three of which underwent stent adjustment, while the remaining three underwent stent reinsertion

Conclusion Gastroesophageal stent placement by IR for gastric leaks post sleeve gastrectomy is safe and effective in our study.

Radiological stent placement of post sleeve gastrectomy leak: efficacy, imaging features and post-procedure complications

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most commonly performed bariatric procedure. The primary and insidious early post-SG complication is the gastric leak (GL). In literature, there are many studies describing the endoscopic stent placement as treatment of GL and few studies about stent placement performed by interventional radiology under fluoroscopic guide. Our aims were to describe the radiological stent placement technique, to compare endoscopic and radiological stent placement, to illustrate normal diagnostic features and summarise the incidence of complications after stent placement, removal, and their imaging features. This was a single centre retrospective study of 595 patients who underwent SG between 2011 and 2019. Inclusion criteria: patients who developed GL after SG and treated with gastro-oesophageal stent placement by endoscopy or interventional radiology; availability of medical history and imaging studies; follow-up time after stent removal (1 year). The rates of technical success, clinical success and complications after stent placement and removal were collected and compared between the two methods of stent positioning. A total of 17/595 (2.8%) patients developed a radiologically diagnosed GL after SG. The type II-III GLs (15/17) were treated with endoscopic or radiological stent placement. 9/15 (60%/Group A) patients underwent gastro-oesophageal stenting by interventional radiology and 6/15 (40%/Group B) were treated with endoscopic stent placement. The technical and clinical success rate was 100% for both groups. Stent migration occurred in 22% and 27% for Group A and B respectively. Post-extraction stenosis was the main late complication, occurring in 22% in Group A and 0% in Group B. Gastro-esophageal stent placement performed by interventional radiologists is a valid "mini-invasive" treatment for GL. This procedure is not inferior to endoscopic positioning regarding efficacy, periprocedural and postprocedural complication rate. It's necessary to be familiar with radiological findings after stent placement and removal. Computed tomography (CT) scan is the main radiological technique to identify stent placement complications. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) series are the first radiological procedures used to detect late complications after stent removal.

A Comprehensive Review of Endoscopic Management of Sleeve Gastrectomy Leaks

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery leaks result in significant morbidity and mortality. Experts report variable therapeutic approaches, without uniform guidelines or consensus.

OBJECTIVE

To review the pathogenesis, risk factors, prevention, and treatment of gastric sleeve leaks, with a focus on endoscopic approaches. In addition, the efficacy and success rates of different treatment modalities are assessed.

DESIGN

A comprehensive review was conducted using a thorough literature search of 5 online electronic databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science) from the time of their inception through March 2020. Studies evaluating gastric sleeve leaks were included. MeSH terms related to "endoscopic," "leak," "sleeve," "gastrectomy," "anastomotic," and "bariatric" were applied to a highly sensitive search strategy. The main outcomes were epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Literature search yielded 2418 studies of which 438 were incorporated into the review. Shock and peritonitis necessitate early surgical intervention for leaks. Endoscopic therapies in acute and early leaks involve modalities with a focus on one of: (i) defect closure, (ii) wall diversion, or (iii) wall exclusion. Surgical revision is required if endoscopic therapies fail to control leaks after 6 months. Chronic leaks require one or more endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical approaches for fluid collection drainage to facilitate adequate healing. Success rates depend on provider and center expertise.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic management of leaks post sleeve gastrectomy is a minimally invasive and effective alternative to surgery. Their effect may vary based on clinical presentation, timing or leak morphology, and should be tailored to the appropriate endoscopic modality of treatment.

Endoscopic Management of Post-Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Leakage and Stenosis Using Fully Covered Stent

Background

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most commonly performed surgery to treat morbid obesity. Post-LSG leak and stenosis are serious complications that can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

Objective

The objective was to report the efficacy and safety profile of using specifically designed fully covered self-expandable metallic stent for the treatment of post-LSG complications.

Methods

This retrospective study included adult patients who underwent placement of a fully covered esophagogastric, self-expandable metallic stent for post-LSG leak or stenosis. The procedure was carried out at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, between September 2017 and May 2019. Data regarding demographics, indication for stenting, size of the stent, procedural success and poststenting adverse events were collected.

Results

A total of 14 patients met the inclusion criteria, with indication for endoscopic stenting being post-LSG leak in 11 patients and stenosis in 3 patients. The technical success rate of self-expandable metallic stent placement was 100%, and the clinical success was 85.7% (12 of 14 patients). Nausea (71.4%) and vomiting (85.7%) were the most frequent mild adverse events reported. Stent-induced esophageal stricture was the only major adverse event reported in two patients.

Conclusion

Placement of specifically designed self-expandable metallic stent for the treatment of post-LSG leak and stenosis is an effective and safe approach. Further studies with larger cohorts are needed to assess the optimal duration needed to treat such complications.

Idiopathic gastric fundus necrosis: Case report about a rare and fatal clinical condition

INTRODUCTION

Gastric fundus ischemia is a rare event, which does not account for many significant clinical studies. This disorder could have different etiologies, but authors agree that a prompt diagnosis and a proper treatment could avoid dangerous complications and ultimately the death of the patient.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

We herein report an interesting idiopathic case of acute gastric dilatation and fundus ischemia of an 83-year-old Caucasic woman who was admitted to the Emergency Department complaining of abdominal discomfort, vomiting and constipation.

DISCUSSION

In literature, only a few case reports about this condition are reported. Possible risk factors, etiologies, and the different therapeutic options available for this condition are examined, in order to try to favor clinicians to formulate a timely diagnosis and provide patients with rapid healthcare services.

CONCLUSION

Further investigations are still needed to analyze the pathophysiological pathways responsible of gastric fundus ischemia and to provide a definitive treatment to this dangerous disorder.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Perioperative Nutrition, Metabolic, and Nonsurgical Support of Patients Undergoing Bariatric Procedures - 2019 Update: Cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), Obesity Medicine Association (OMA), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Boards of Directors in adherence with the AACE 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPGs, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include: contextualization in an adiposity-based chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current health care arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory, with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutrition, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of patients undergoing bariatric procedures - 2019 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPG) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, the Obesity Medicine Association, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists boards of directors in adherence to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPG, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include contextualization in an adiposity-based, chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based, and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current healthcare arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence-based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.