Assessment of perioperative complications following primary bariatric surgery according to the Clavien–Dindo classification: comparison of sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-Y gastric bypass
- 890 Downloads
Laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGBP) is the gold-standard procedure for the treatment of morbid obesity. It has been reported to be somewhat more efficient and durable than laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, it is considered more invasive and, therefore, more hazardous. There is a lack of unity in complication reporting following bariatric surgery. Thus, there is a possible misconception regarding the relative safety of the two major bariatric procedures performed worldwide. This may have contributed to a shift in practice with LSG gaining momentum “at the expense” of LRYGBP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative safety of primary LSG and LRYGBP according to the Clavien–Dindo complication grading system.
A total of 2651 and 554 patients underwent primary LSG and LRYGBP, respectively at three high-volume centers. Thirty-day perioperative complications were recorded and graded. Length of hospital stays (LOS) and readmission rates were collected as well.
Complications occurred in 110 (3.7 %) and 24 (4.3 %) patients following LSG and LRYGBP, respectively (p = 0.9). No significant difference was found between the groups regarding overall and complication-grade-specific rates. Individual complication types were unevenly distributed, but not significantly so. Patients with complications were older than those without (47 and 43 years, respectively; p = 0.01). Gender was not a risk factor for complication. Median LOS and readmission rates were not significantly different.
LSG and LRYGBP are equally safe, at least in the perioperative period. Acknowledging and conveying this finding to surgeons and patients alike is important and might cause a pendulum shift in the distribution of bariatric procedures performed.
KeywordsBariatric Complications Sleeve gastrectomy Gastric bypass Clavien–Dindo classification
Drs. D. Goitein, A. Raziel, A. Szold and N. Sakran have no conflict of interest to disclose.
- 3.Buchwald H, Estok R, Fahrbach K, Banel D, Jensen MD, Pories WJ, Bantle JP, Sledge I (2009) Weight and type 2 diabetes after bariatric surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Med 122(248–256):e245Google Scholar
- 8.Flum DR, Belle SH, King WC, Wahed AS, Berk P, Chapman W, Pories W, Courcoulas A, McCloskey C, Mitchell J, Patterson E, Pomp A, Staten MA, Yanovski SZ, Thirlby R, Wolfe B (2009) Perioperative safety in the longitudinal assessment of bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 361:445–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibanes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Peterli R, Borbely Y, Kern B, Gass M, Peters T, Thurnheer M, Schultes B, Laederach K, Bueter M, Schiesser M (2013) Early results of the Swiss Multicentre Bypass or Sleeve Study (SM-BOSS): a prospective randomized trial comparing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Ann Surg 258:690–694 discussion 695PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Peterli R, Wolnerhanssen B, Peters T, Devaux N, Kern B, Christoffel-Courtin C, Drewe J, von Flue M, Beglinger C (2009) Improvement in glucose metabolism after bariatric surgery: comparison of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 250:234–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Iannelli A, Tavana R, Martini F, Noel P, Gugenheim J (2014) Laparoscopic roux limb placement over a fistula defect without mucosa-to-mucosa anastomosis: a modified technique for surgical management of chronic proximal fistulas after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg 24:825–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar