OBES SURG DOI 10.1007/s11695-016-2063-x
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity in 3003 Patients: Results at a High-Volume Bariatric Center Nasser Sakran 1,2,3 & Asnat Raziel 1 & Orly Goitein 4,5 & Amir Szold 1 & David Goitein 1,5,6
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Background Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is gaining wide acceptance as a single surgical treatment for obesity. The reported morbidity and mortality rates are low. We herein report the results of LSG performed in a highvolume center by an experienced team. Methods Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of all bariatric surgery (BS) was performed between May 2006 and December 2014. Data inspected included operative time, length of hospital stay (LOS), comorbidity resolution, re-operation, percent excess weight loss (%EWL), and 30-day morbidity and mortality. Results In the study period, 3003 patients underwent BS (1901 (63 %) female). Mean age and body mass index (BMI) were 43 years (range 14–73) and 42.8 kg/m2 (range
35–73), respectively. %EWL at 1 year was 72 % (n = 937; 57 % follow-up rate). There was 1 perioperative mortality due to bleeding (0.03 %). Comorbidity improvement and resolution were 98 % for obstructive sleep apnea, 79 % for diabetes mellitus, 87 % for dyslipidemia, and 85 % for hypertension. Mean operative time and LOS were 50 min (range 32– 94) and 2.2 days (range 1–38), respectively. Of the patients, 132 had complications (4.4 %), 25 leaks (0.83 %), 63 bleeding (2.1 %), 1 intra-abdominal abscesses (0.03 %), 3 sleeve strictures (0.1 %), 2 mesenteric vein thromboses (0.06 %), 10 trocar site hernias (0.3 %), and 78 symptomatic cholelithiasis (2.6 %). Re-operation was needed in 13 patients (0.43 %). Conclusion In a high-volume center with an experienced team, LSG can be performed with low morbidity and mortality. Keywords Morbid obesity . Bariatric surgery . Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy
Presented at the 20th World Congress of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, Vienna, Austria, August 26–29, 2015. * Nasser Sakran
[email protected]
1
Israeli Center for Bariatric Surgery (ICBS), Assia Medical Group, Assuta Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
2
Department of Surgery A, Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel
3
Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
4
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel
5
Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
6
Department of Surgery C, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel
Background Obesity is a chronic disease associated with an increased risk of comorbidities and mortality. The World Health Organization (WHO) calculates that there are 600 million obese people in the world as of 2014, representing 10 % of the population [1, 2]. Bariatric surgery is effective in reducing obesity-related comorbidities as well as stabilizing long-term weight loss [3, 4]. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the second most commonly performed procedure worldwide [3, 5]. LSG is a primarily restrictive, effective, and safe bariatric procedure. Its major advantages are its relative operative simplicity, lack of anastomoses, retention of normal gastrointestinal continuity, absence of a malabsorptive component, and the
OBES SURG
induction of a favorable hormonal change, facilitating weight loss through restriction and appetite suppression [5–7]. Faster gastric emptying has also been suggested as a contributory mechanism [8, 9]. Its disadvantages include irreversibility and the risk of stapling complications [10]. As in the rest of the world [3], the absolute number, as well as the percentage of LSGs performed in Israel, has increased rapidly. It has become the most frequent bariatric procedure, accounting for 80 % of all bariatric operations performed. Different reports reveal a startling lack of unity regarding surgical technique. Surgery is carried out by different teams with various degrees of experience and with remarkable variability between institutions. The Israel Center for Bariatric Surgery (ICBS) is a multidisciplinary referral center dedicated to the treatment of morbid obesity. It was initiated in 2006 and has since acquired extensive experience in laparoscopic bariatric procedures. It includes four fellowship-trained bariatric surgeons, two plastic surgeons, a gastroenterologist, two psychologists, four bariatric dietitians, coordinators, and a nurse, alongside an administrative team. We herein report the results of 3003 consecutive patients who underwent LSG over 8 years by a bariatric team.
Methods Study Design Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of all bariatric procedures performed was carried out querying all LSG cases performed between May 2006 and December 2014 (n = 3003). Information collected included patient demographics, anthropometrics, comorbidity presence and improvement/resolution, operative and perioperative data, percent excess weight loss (%EWL), and 30-day morbidity and mortality. All patients operated were eligible for bariatric surgery according to the national guidelines, namely, patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 kg/m2 or 35 < BMI < 40 kg/m2 with significant weight-related comorbidities, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea, were included. Patients deemed unsuitable for surgery due to medical or psychological reasons were excluded. LSG was performed using a four-port technique: The lesser sac was opened at a point across the incisura angularis. The omentum was separated from the stomach distally to 1–2 cm from the pylorus and proximally to the angle of His with harmonic shears (Ethicon Endosurgery, Cincinnati, OH) or Liga-Sure™ (Covidien, Norwalk, CT). The left crus of diaphragm was completely exposed with any posterior attachment to the lesser sac divided. The greater curvature of the stomach was resected with endoscopic linear staplers
(Echelon 60 Endopath Stapler ® , Ethicon Endosurgery, Cincinnati, OH or Endo GIA™ Staplers with Tri-Staple™ reloads, Covidien, Norwalk, CT) alongside a round-tipped silicone bougie (Pilling® Hurst Bougie Tungsten, Teleflex Medical, High Wycomb, UK). The bougie sizes used in the procedure were 32 and 34 F, according to surgeon preference. A fifth port was occasionally added for additional retraction. Endoscopic clips were used liberally for hemostasis of the stapler line [11]. Routine upper GI imaging has been abandoned and was performed only to assess patients with a clinical suspicion of a leak or obstruction. All patients received venous thromboembolic prophylaxis with pneumatic compression stockings and subcutaneous, low-molecular-weight heparin, initiated within 12 h of surgery. This was continued for 2 weeks postoperatively. The doses of low-molecularweight heparin were 40, 60, 80, and 100 mg for patients weighing >100, 101–140, 141–180, and >180 kg, respectively. Clear fluid oral intake was started on the first postoperative day, and the patients were discharged when able to tolerate a daily intake of 2 L. Specific dietary instructions were given inhouse by a bariatric dietitian. Patients were prescribed a proton pump inhibitor for 6 weeks postoperatively. Follow-up visits after surgery were performed at 2 weeks; 3, 6, and 12 months; and then annually. For hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia, comorbidity resolution was defined as maintenance of normal values without the use of medications. Improvement for these comorbidities was defined as using lower doses or less medication types than before surgery for control. Statistical analysis: Analysis of data was performed using SPSS 11.0 statistical analysis software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Continuous variables were described as mean (minimum-maximum). Continuous variables were compared by using Student’s t test for independent samples. Categorical variables were described using frequency distributions and are presented as frequency (%). Categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test as necessary. All tests are two-tailed and considered significant at p < 0.05. This study was approved by the institutional review board.
Results Between May 2006 and December 2014, 3003 sleeve gastrectomies were performed at ICBS (Table 1). In-hospital data were collected for all patients. The 30-day follow-up rate was 100 % but dropped precipitously at the yearly planned visits. The number of LSG procedures performed doubled from 2010 (n = 307) to 2013 (n = 605). Females comprised the majority of cases (n = 1901; 63.3 %). Mean age was 43 years (range 14–73), with 8.1 %
OBES SURG Table 1
Patients’ general characteristics (n = 3003)
Patient characteristic
Variable
Demographics Mean age, years
43 (range 14–73)
Age ≥ 60 Age ≤ 18
244 patients (8 %) 56 patients (1.8 %)
Gender Female
1901 (63.3 %)
Male
1102 (36.7 %)
Mean body mass index (BMI) BMI ≥ 50
42.8 451 patients (15 %)
Mean hospital stay Mean total operative time
2.2 days (range 1–38) 50 min (range 32–94)
Conversion to open approach
0 (0 %)
Previous bariatric surgery Synchronous procedures
177 (6 %) 461 (15 %)
Comorbidities Diabetes mellitus
832 (27.7 %)
Hypertension
862 (28.7 %)
Obstructive sleep apnea Dyslipidemia
476 (15.9 %) 1357 (45.2 %)
of patients older than 60 years old and 1.8 % younger than 18. The mean weight and BMI were 120.5 kg (range 75–220) and 42.8 kg/m2 (range 35–73), respectively. Fifteen percent of the patients (n = 451) were super obese (BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2; Table 1). LSG was the primary procedure in 2826 patients (94 %); the remaining 177 patients (6 %) underwent a conversion from a previous restrictive procedure. One-hundred fifty-eight patients had a previous LAGB. Of these, 113 patients underwent concomitant band removal and LSG and 45 patients underwent LSG after a previous band removal; 7 patients had a previous vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) and 12 patients had a previous LSG. Mean operative time was 50 min (range 32–94). The median length of hospital stay was 2.2 days (range 1–38). No conversions to an open procedure occurred during the primary procedure. Synchronous procedures (461 cases, 15 %) included cholecystectomy in 204 (7 %), abdominal wall hernia repair in 68 (2 %), and diaphragmatic hernia repair in 189 (6 %) cases. Early postoperative complications were seen in 132 (4.4 %) patients (Table 2). This included one death (0.03 %) in a male patient due to bleeding from a short gastric artery that was only identified after collapse of the patient and re-operation within hours of the initial LSG. Bleeding was the most common complication after LSG (63 patients, 2.1 %; Table 3). In the vast majority of cases (n = 50, 80 %), the bleeding was resolved without any invasive
intervention. Of these, 23 required blood transfusions and, occasionally, plasma, while 27 were managed without blood transfusion. In 13 (20 %) patients, re-exploration was necessary to control bleeding; all performed laparoscopically. In three of these patients, a distinct bleeding source was found and controlled; three patients had intra-gastric bleeding. In seven patients, no clear source of bleeding was found during laparoscopy and cleansing of the abdomen with clot removal sufficed. Two of these patients were converted to open surgery; one underwent splenectomy and the other required open hemostasis due to omental bleeding. A leak occurred in 25 patients (0.83 %). Leaks were identified in the early postoperative phase (0–2 days) in 8 patients, intermediate (3–7 days) in 10 patients, and late (>7 days) in 7 patients. In 23 of the patients (92 %), the leak site was located in the upper sleeve. Leaks were treated by multiple modalities, including endoscopic clipping, stenting, imaging-guided percutaneous drainage, and re-operation, and eventually resolved. Three patients (0.1 %) presented with nausea, vomiting, and an inability to tolerate fluid intake within 30 days of surgery. Readmission and fluoroscopic imaging revealed a narrowing of the sleeve which was successfully treated by endoscopic dilatation. Complications were more frequent in revisional cases, but this trend was not statistically significant (5.65 vs 4.35 % in primary LSG; p = 0.53). However, leak occurrence was fourfold in revisional than in primary LSG (2.5 vs. 0.7 %, respectively; p = 0.001) (Table 2). Late complications were seen in 88 patients (2.9 %); 78 patients (2.6 %) developed cholelithiasis and 10 patients (0.33 %) developed trocar site hernia. Overall, 44 patients that required re-operations were 1.4 % (Table 4). Comorbidity resolution was observed in 44.2 % (n = 381) for hypertension, 68.9 % (n = 573) for diabetes mellitus, 51.4 % (n = 697) for dyslipidemia, and 67.6 % (n = 322) for obstructive sleep apnea (Table 5). Mean percent excess weight loss was 72 % (n = 937) at 1 year, at which time the follow-up rate was 57 %.
Discussion In recent years, LSG has become the preferred bariatric procedure by both patients and surgeons [3, 12, 13]. In Israel, sleeve gastrectomy surgery has rapidly gained acceptance, comprising 80 % of all bariatric procedures (Israel National Bariatric Registry 2014). Various complications are reported following LSG, including leaks, bleeding, strictures, and nutritional deficiencies. The reported postoperative complication rates vary between 1 and 29 % [7, 11, 14, 15]. The most frequently encountered
OBES SURG Table 2 Incidence of early postoperative complications (≤30 days) N of operations Death
Revision N (%)
2826 (94 %) 1 (0.04)
177(6 %)
P Value
All N (%)
0.06
3003 (100 %) 1 (0.03)
Leak
20 (0.71)
5 (2.82)
0.001
25 (0.83)
Bleeding Abdominal wall hematoma
60 (2.12) 6 (0.21)
3 (1.69)
0.9 0.8
63 (2.1) 6 (0.2)
Intra-abdominal hematoma
6 (0.21)
0.8
6 (0.2)
Intra-abdominal abscess Portal vein thrombosis
5 (0.18) 4 (0.14)
0.8 0.5
6 (0.2) 4 (0.13)
Deep vein thrombosis
1 (0.04)
0.06
1 (0.03)
Diabetic keto acidosis Splenectomy
2 (0.07) 1 (0.04)
0.2 0.06
2 (0.07) 1 (0.03)
Infarct of upper pole of spleen
2 (0.07)
0.2
2 (0.07)
Clostridium difficile infection Obstruction/blockage of sleeve
4 (0.14) 2 (0.07)
0.5 0.4
4 (0.13) 3 (0.1)
Wound infection Pneumonia
2 (0.07) 2 (0.07)
0.2 0.2
2 (0.07) 2 (0.07)
Urinary tract infection Atrial fibrillation Small-bowel ischemia Pericarditis
2 (0.07) 1 (0.04) 1 (0.04) 1 (0.04)
0.2 0.06 0.06 0.06
2 (0.07) 1 (0.03) 1 (0.03) 1 (0.03)
Total
123 (4.35)
0.53
133 (4.43)
major complications include leaks (0–10 %), suture line hemorrhage (0–10 %), and major organ injury (0–5 %). Staple line leaks can result in severe peritonitis, sepsis, multiorgan failure, and rarely, patient demise. The leak rate in our series was 0.83 % (n = 25), consistent, and slightly lower, with that reported elsewhere. Leak management is dependent on several parameters, including the time to diagnosis, magnitude of the systemic response, and location and size of the leak [10, 16, 17]. Poor operative outcome and a greater leakage rate are associated with super morbid obesity, male gender, older age, previous bariatric procedure, medical comorbidities, and the surgeon’s experience [18–20]. The majority of leaks after SG are noted within the first days following the surgery, a large proportion of which are discovered after patient discharge; almost all are detected
Table 3
Primary procedure N (%)
1 (0.56)
1 (0.56)
10 (5.65)
within the first 30 days following surgery. The most common leak site is at the proximal portion of the staple line, particularly around the gastroesophageal junction [10]. Intraoperative leak testing with air/methylene blue was not performed as it is not predictive of leaks discovered later [10, 21]. In our experience, leak occurs four times more frequently in revisional cases than in primary LSG. Early postoperative bleeding is not uncommon following SG. In our cohort, bleeding was the most common in-hospital complication (n = 63, 2.1 %). The most common bleeding site is the staple line after transection of the stomach, but it may also occur from the gastroepiploic or short gastric vessels during dissection of the greater curvature. The gastrosplenic ligament may be short, or missing, with virtual fusion of the fundus to the upper pole of the spleen. Therefore, care must be taken to stay close to the stomach tissue, thus avoiding
Bleeding source after sleeve gastrectomy Table 4
Bleeding source after LSG
Number
Percent
Omentum Spleen Stapler line Intra-gastric Gallbladder bed Unknown origin Total
4 3 3 4 1 48 63
6.35 4.76 4.76 6.35 1.59 76.2 100
Re-interventions
Leak Bleeding Obstruction of sleeve Intra-abdominal hematoma Abdominal wall hematoma Abdominal abscess Mesenteric thrombosis and small-bowel necrosis Total
22 13 3 2 1 1 2 44
OBES SURG Table 5
Resolution and improvement of comorbidities at 1 year Percent
Condition
Resolved
Improved
No change
Type 2 diabetes Hypertension
68.9 44.2
29.8 41.5
1.3 14.3
Obstructive sleep apnea
67.6
30.7
1.7
Dyslipidemia
51.4
36.4
12.2
need for standardization of the procedure in order to allow such comparisons and perhaps make this procedure safer.
Conclusion A high-volume, dedicated center may offer a lower than expected morbidity and mortality achieved by a meticulous and standardized approach. Compliance with Ethical Standards
inadvertent injury to the splenic capsule. This capsule might also be torn in cases of omental adhesions vigorously retracted while attempting to better visualize the proximal greater curvature. Early recognition of postoperative bleeding is crucial. We routinely leave a closed-suction drain near the staple line, although this is definitely not evidence-based [22]. Careful clinical and hemodynamic monitoring, in combination with observation of the intra-abdominal drain output, may help avoid hypovolemic shock. In this study, 67 % of postoperative bleedings were managed conservatively, without the need for invasive intervention. There is still debate in the literature regarding the utility of reinforcement or buttressing of the staple line to prevent or decrease the leak and bleeding rate [23–25]. In our patients, we utilized suturing, various types of buttressing, or no reinforcement. This was not done according to a specific protocol but reflects the changes in our everyday practice throughout the study period. We therefore cannot presume to make recommendations in this respect. Our experience echoes that of previously reported data, namely, that LSG is safe and effective in achieving significant and durable weight loss with improvement of comorbidities. It is an excellent weight loss operation in the short- and mid-term periods (3–5 years). As a high-volume multidisciplinary bariatric center, the rate of complications, re-operations, and mortality were 4.4, 1.5, and 0.03 %, respectively, which compares favorably with those reported elsewhere [7, 15, 26]. The ICBS is a private practice group which, unfortunately, resulted in a large dropout from follow-up. After the first few months, most patients preferred HMO-covered appointments with dietitians, psychologists, and physicians and were lost to us for data retrieval. This makes any attempt at drawing conclusions beyond the first-year presumptuous and therefore not done. As a non-randomized, retrospective study, inherent limitations preclude definitive statements regarding specific surgical techniques or management choices. A larger, randomized, comparative study might shed more light on these topics that this study was unable to demonstrate. There appears to be a
Conflict of Interest Disclosures Drs. Sakran, Raziel, Szold, and Goitein have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Ethical Approval This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
References 1. 2. 3. 4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Ahima RS. Digging deeper into obesity. J Clin Invest. 2012;121(6): 2076–9. WHO. Obesity and overweight fact sheet no. 311. 2014; Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/. Buchwald H, Oien DM. Metabolic/bariatric surgery worldwide 2011. Obes Surg. 2013;23(4):427–36. Maggard MA, Shugarman LR, Suttorp M, et al. Meta-analysis: surgical treatment of obesity. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(7):547– 59. Baltasar A, Serra C, Perez N, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a multi-purpose bariatric operation. Obes Surg. 2005;15(8): 1124–8. Eid GM, Brethauer S, Mattar SG, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for super obese patients: forty-eight percent excess weight loss after 6 to 8 years with 93% follow-up. Ann Surg. 2012;256(2): 262–5. Sanchez-Santos R, Masdevall C, Baltasar A, et al. Short- and midterm outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity: the experience of the Spanish National Registry. Obes Surg. 2009;19(9): 1203–10. Braghetto I, Davanzo C, Korn O, et al. Scintigraphic evaluation of gastric emptying in obese patients submitted to sleeve gastrectomy compared to normal subjects. Obes Surg. 2009;19(11):1515–21. Kandeel AA, Sarhan MD, Hegazy T, et al. Comparative assessment of gastric emptying in obese patients before and after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy using radionuclide scintigraphy. Nucl Med Commun. 2015, 36:854–62 Sakran N, Goitein D, Raziel A, et al. Gastric leaks after sleeve gastrectomy: a multicenter experience with 2,834 patients. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(1):240–5. Goitein D, Raziel A, Szold A, et al. Assessment of perioperative complications following primary bariatric surgery according to the Clavien-Dindo classification: comparison of sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2015. (in press)
OBES SURG 12.
Lazzati A, Guy-Lachuer R, Delaunay V, et al. Bariatric surgery trends in France: 2005–2011. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;10(2): 328–34. 13. Reames BN, Finks JF, Bacal D, et al. Changes in bariatric surgery procedure use in Michigan, 2006–2013. JAMA. 2014;312(9):959– 61. 14. Sleeve gastrectomy as a bariatric procedure. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007;3(6):573–6. PubMed eng 15. Stroh C, Birk D, Flade-Kuthe R, et al. Results of sleeve gastrectomy—data from a nationwide survey on bariatric surgery in Germany. Obes Surg. 2009;19(5):632–40. 16. Marquez MF, Ayza MF, Lozano RB, et al. Gastric leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Obesity surgery. 201. PubMed Eng 17. Nedelcu M, Manos T, Cotirlet A, et al. Outcome of leaks after sleeve gastrectomy based on a new algorithm addressing leak size and gastric stenosis. Obes Surg. 2015;25(3):559–63. 18. Aurora AR, Khaitan L, Saber AA. Sleeve gastrectomy and the risk of leak: a systematic analysis of 4,888 patients. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(6):1509–15. 19. Flum DR, Salem L, Elrod JA, et al. Early mortality among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing bariatric surgical procedures. JAMA. 2005;294(15):1903–8.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Smith MD, Patterson E, Wahed AS, et al. Thirty-day mortality after bariatric surgery: independently adjudicated causes of death in the longitudinal assessment of bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2012;21(11):1687–92. Sethi M, Zagzag J, Patel K, Magrath M, Somoza E, Parikh MS, et al. Intraoperative leak testing has no correlation with leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Surgical endoscopy. 2015. (in press) Albanopoulos K, Alevizos L, Linardoutsos D, et al. Routine abdominal drains after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a retrospective review of 353 patients. Obes Surg. 2011;21(6):687–91. Barreto TW, Kemmeter PR, Paletta MP, et al. A comparison of a single center’s experience with three staple line reinforcement techniques in 1,502 laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy patients. Obes Surg. 2015;25(3):418–22. Gagner M, Buchwald JN. Comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy leak rates in four staple-line reinforcement options: a systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10(4):713–23. Shikora SA, Mahoney CB. Clinical benefit of gastric staple line reinforcement (SLR) in gastrointestinal surgery: a meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2015;25(7):1133–41. ASMBS. Updated position statement on sleeve gastrectomy as a bariatric procedure. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012;8(3):e21–6.
