COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Endoscopic treatment of fistulas after sleeve gastrectomy: a comparison of internal drainage versus closure.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Fistulas after sleeve gastrectomy are major adverse events of bariatric surgery. The endoscopic management strategy evolved from closure to internal drainage after 2013. The main objective of our study was to evaluate and compare these different approaches.

METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients treated for fistulas after sleeve gastrectomy in a referral center. Closure management was defined as initial treatment that used a covered metal stent and/or endoclips. Internal drainage management was defined as initial treatment by nasocystic drain and/or a double-pigtail stent.

RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (women N = 78, mean [± standard deviation {SD}] age 42 ± 12 years) were included between 2007 and 2015. The mean (± SD) delay between sleeve gastrectomy and the first endoscopy was 82 ± 125 days. The overall success of endoscopic treatment was 86% within 6 ± 27 months. Two patients died. The primary success of internal drainage and closure management occurred in 19 of 22 (86%) and 49 of 77 (63%) patients, respectively. Among patients in failure for closure management, 22 had secondary internal drainage (18 being successful). Success of initial management was significantly higher for internal drainage (P = .043). Factors associated with failure of closure management were in multivariable analysis: collection >5 cm (P = .013). Factors associated with a time >6 months for achieving leakage closure were in multivariable analysis: reoperation before endoscopy (P = .044) and purulent flow at endoscopy (P = .043).

CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic management of fistulas after sleeve gastrectomy was successful in 86% of cases. In cases of collections >5 cm, internal drainage should be proposed first. Surgical reintervention before endoscopy delays treatment success.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app