Varban Oliver A, Sheetz Kyle H, Cassidy Ruth B, Stricklen Amanda, Carlin Arthur M, Dimick Justin B, Finks Jonathan F
Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017 Apr;13(4):560-567. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2016.11.027. Epub 2016 Dec 10.
To assess the effect of operative technique on staple line leaks after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).
Staple-line leaks after LSG are a major source of morbidity and mortality. Variations in operative technique exist; however, their effect on leaks is poorly understood.
We analyzed data from the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative (MBSC) to perform a case-control study comparing patients who had a clinically significant leak after undergoing a primary LSG to those who did not. A total of 45 patients with leaks were identified between January 2007 and December 2013. The leak group was matched 1:2 to a control group based on procedure type, age, body mass index, sex, and year the procedure was performed. Technique-specific factors were assessed by reviewing operative notes from all primary bariatric procedures in our study population. Conditional logistic regression was used to identify techniques associated with leaks. To increase the power of our analysis, we used a significance level of .10.
Leak rates with LSG have decreased over the past 5 years (1.18% to .36%) as annual case volume has increased (846 cases/yr to 4435 cases/yr). Surgeons who performed 43 or more cases per year had a leak rate<1%. Leaks were more common among cases requiring a blood transfusion (26.2% versus 1.08%, P = .0031) and when cases were converted to open surgery (7.14% versus 0%, P = .0741). However, there was no significant difference in operative time between cases involving a leak and their matched controls (95.4 min versus 87.1 min, P = .1197). Oversewing of the staple line was the only technique associated with less leaks after controlling for confounding factors (OR .397 CI .174, .909, P = .0665). Notably, surgeons who oversewed routinely were also found to have higher case volume (307 versus 140, P = .0216) and less overall complication rates (4.81% versus 7.95%, P = .0027). Furthermore, oversewing technique varied widely as only 22.6% of cases involved oversewing of the entire staple line.
Despite considerable variation in operative technique, leak rates with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy have decreased over time as operative volume has increased. Oversewing of the staple line was associated with fewer leaks, but specific suturing technique was not uniform and oversewing was performed routinely by more experienced surgeons with higher case volumes and less complication rates overall. Before standardizing surgical technique one must take into account variations in surgeon skill and experience.
评估手术技术对腹腔镜袖状胃切除术(LSG)后吻合口漏的影响。
LSG后的吻合口漏是发病和死亡的主要原因。手术技术存在差异;然而,其对吻合口漏的影响尚不清楚。
我们分析了密歇根减肥手术协作组(MBSC)的数据,进行病例对照研究,比较初次接受LSG后发生临床显著吻合口漏的患者与未发生吻合口漏的患者。2007年1月至2013年12月期间共确定了45例发生吻合口漏的患者。根据手术类型、年龄、体重指数、性别和手术年份,将吻合口漏组与对照组按1:2进行匹配。通过查阅我们研究人群中所有初次减肥手术的手术记录,评估特定技术因素。采用条件逻辑回归来确定与吻合口漏相关的技术。为提高分析效能,我们使用了0.10的显著性水平。
在过去5年中,随着年手术量的增加(从每年846例增至4435例),LSG的吻合口漏率有所下降(从1.18%降至0.36%)。每年进行43例或更多手术的外科医生的吻合口漏率<1%。在需要输血的病例中吻合口漏更常见(26.2%对1.08%,P = 0.0031),以及手术转为开放手术时(7.14%对0%,P = 0.0741)。然而,发生吻合口漏的病例与其匹配对照组之间的手术时间无显著差异(95.4分钟对87.1分钟,P = 0.1197)。在控制混杂因素后,吻合口缝扎是唯一与较少吻合口漏相关的技术(OR 0.397,CI 0.174,0.909,P = 0.0665)。值得注意的是,常规进行吻合口缝扎的外科医生的手术量也更高(307例对140例,P = 0.0216),总体并发症发生率更低(4.81%对7.95%,P = 0.0027)。此外,吻合口缝扎技术差异很大,因为只有22.6%的病例涉及对整个吻合口进行缝扎。
尽管手术技术存在相当大的差异,但随着手术量的增加,腹腔镜袖状胃切除术的吻合口漏率随时间下降。吻合口缝扎与较少的吻合口漏相关,但具体的缝合技术并不统一,且经验更丰富、手术量更高且总体并发症发生率更低的外科医生更常常规进行吻合口缝扎。在标准化手术技术之前,必须考虑外科医生技术和经验的差异。