Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Endoscopic management of refractory leaks and fistulas after bariatric surgery with long-term follow-up

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In selected cases of post-bariatric leaks and fistulas, endoscopy is an initial treatment modality. Management can be complex and require multiple endoscopic sessions with varying degrees of success. Our aim was to describe our tertiary care experience on endoscopy management of refractory post-bariatric leaks and fistulas.

Methods

Patients with post-bariatric leaks and/or fistulas who failed an initial endoscopic intervention were included. Endoscopic treatments were classified into four strategies: (1) closure management, (2) active drainage, (3) passive drainage, and (4) plugging. Clinical success and adverse events were assessed.

Results

A total of 25 patients (mean age = 45.3 ± 11.8 years and 56% female) were included. Clinical success was achieved in 20 patients (80%) with a mean of 3.0 ± 1.5 procedures and a median time to healing of 114.5 (53–210.3) days. Closure and plugging were the main successful strategies used for early and acute leaks/fistulas, while drainage was for late and chronic leaks/fistulas. Adverse events were observed in 13 patients (52%) with one serious adverse event. Patients with fistulas had a lower success rate (72.2% vs. 100%, P = 0.052). Of those with clinical failure (n = 5), four underwent reconstructive surgery, eventually led to success in 3 patients. The other one died of septic shock related to a complicated fistula.

Conclusions

Complex multi-modality endoscopic management ultimately achieved clinical success in most cases of refractory leaks/fistulas post-bariatric with an acceptable safety profile. However, a close follow-up to detect the development of long-term failure is warranted. These patients should be referred to a specialized bariatric center with expertise in bariatric endoscopy and surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. English WJ et al (2018) American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery estimation of metabolic and bariatric procedures performed in the United States in 2016. Surg Obes Relat Dis 14(3):259–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Peterli R et al (2018) Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss in patients with morbid obesity: the SM-BOSS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 319(3):255–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Salminen P et al (2018) Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss at 5 Years Among Patients With Morbid Obesity: the SLEEVEPASS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 319(3):241–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kim J et al (2015) ASMBS position statement on prevention, detection, and treatment of gastrointestinal leak after gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy, including the roles of imaging, surgical exploration, and nonoperative management. Surg Obes Relat Dis 11(4):739–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Marshall JS et al (2003) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass leak complications. Arch Surg 138(5):520–523 discussion 523-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schulman AR, Thompson CC (2017) Complications of bariatric surgery: what you can expect to see in your GI practice. Am J Gastroenterol 112(11):1640–1655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hutter MM et al (2011) First report from the American College of Surgeons Bariatric Surgery Center Network: laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has morbidity and effectiveness positioned between the band and the bypass. Ann Surg 254(3):410–420 discussion 420-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Christophorou D et al (2015) Endoscopic treatment of fistula after sleeve gastrectomy: results of a multicenter retrospective study. Endoscopy 47(11):988–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lorenzo D et al (2018) Endoscopic treatment of fistulas after sleeve gastrectomy: a comparison of internal drainage versus closure. Gastrointest Endosc 87(2):429–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Willingham FF, Buscaglia JM (2015) Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal leaks and fistulae. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 13(10):1714–1721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vargas EJ, Abu Dayyeh BK (2018) Keep calm under pressure: a paradigm shift in managing postsurgical leaks. Gastrointest Endosc 87(2):438–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bege T et al (2011) An endoscopic strategy for management of anastomotic complications from bariatric surgery: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 73(2):238–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Keren D et al (2015) Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system for sleeve gastrectomy leaks. Obes Surg 25(8):1358–1363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mahadev S et al (2017) Endoscopic septotomy: an effective approach for internal drainage of sleeve gastrectomy-associated collections. Endoscopy 49(5):504–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Martin Del Campo SE et al (2018) Endoscopic stent placement for treatment of sleeve gastrectomy leak: a single institution experience with fully covered stents. Surg Obes Relat Dis 14(4):453–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rebibo L et al (2016) New endoscopic technique for the treatment of large gastric fistula or gastric stenosis associated with gastric leaks after sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis 12(8):1577–1584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Abou Rached A, Basile M, El Masri H (2014) Gastric leaks post sleeve gastrectomy: review of its prevention and management. World J Gastroenterol 20(38):13904–13910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Praveenraj P et al (2016) Management of gastric leaks after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity: a tertiary care experience and design of a management algorithm. J Minim Access Surg 12(4):342–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rosenthal RJ et al (2012) International sleeve gastrectomy expert panel consensus statement: best practice guidelines based on experience of >12,000 cases. Surg Obes Relat Dis 8(1):8–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cotton PB et al (2010) A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 71(3):446–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shehab HM, Hakky SM, Gawdat KA (2016) An endoscopic strategy combining mega stents and over-the-scope clips for the management of post-bariatric surgery leaks and fistulas (with video). Obes Surg 26(5):941–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Okazaki O et al (2018) Efficacy and safety of stents in the treatment of fistula after bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg 28(6):1788–1796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rieder E et al (2017) Endoscopic stent suture fixation for prevention of esophageal stent migration during prolonged dilatation for achalasia treatment. Dis Esophagus 30(4):1–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wright A et al (2017) Endoscopic suture fixation is associated with reduced migration of esophageal fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS). Surg Endosc 31(9):3489–3494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yang J et al (2017) Esophageal stent fixation with endoscopic suturing device improves clinical outcomes and reduces complications in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer prior to neoadjuvant therapy: a large multicenter experience. Surg Endosc 31(3):1414–1419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ben Nun A et al (2018) Surgical treatment of gastro-pulmonary fistula following bariatric surgery: possible and safe. World J Surg 42(6):1792–1797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nedelcu AM et al (2013) Surgical management of chronic fistula after sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis 9(6):879–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Silva LB et al (2015) Gastrobronchial fistula in sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a systematic review. Obes Surg 25(10):1959–1965

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Veeravich Jaruvongvanich, Reem Matar, Andrew C. Storm, Azizullah Beran, Konstantinos Malandris, Daniel B. Maselli, Eric J. Vargas, Navtej S. Buttar & Barham K. Abu Dayyeh

  2. Division of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Todd A. Kellogg & Travis J. McKenzie

Authors
  1. Veeravich Jaruvongvanich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Reem Matar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew C. Storm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Azizullah Beran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Konstantinos Malandris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daniel B. Maselli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eric J. Vargas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Todd A. Kellogg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Navtej S. Buttar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Travis J. McKenzie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Barham K. Abu Dayyeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BA conceived and designed the study and critically revised the manuscript. VJ and EV designed the study, collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. DM and RM collected the data and drafted the manuscript. ACS interpreted the data, drafted, and critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barham K. Abu Dayyeh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

Dr. Abu Dayyeh is a consultant for Metamodix, BFKW, DyaMx, Boston Scientific, USGI medical, and Endo-TAGSS. He received research support from Apollo Endosurgery, USGI, Spatz Medical, Boston Scientific, GI Dynamics, Cairn Diagnostics, Aspire Bariatrics, and Medtronic. He served as a speaker for Johnson and Johnson, Endogastric Solutions, and Olympus. Dr. Storm is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, ERBE, GI Dynamics, and Endo-TAGSS. He received research support from Boston Scientific and Apollo Endosurgery. Dr. Jaruvongvanich, Reem Matar, Dr. Azilzullah, Dr. Malandris, Dr. Maselli, Dr. Vargas, Dr. Kellogg, Dr. Buttar, and Dr. McKenzie have no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

Ethical approval

Our study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Mayo Clinic Rochester.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 18 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 59 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jaruvongvanich, V., Matar, R., Storm, A.C. et al. Endoscopic management of refractory leaks and fistulas after bariatric surgery with long-term follow-up. Surg Endosc 35, 2715–2723 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07702-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07702-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation