Advertisement

Complications Related to Linear Staplers

  • Gregory A. Joice
  • Mohammad E. Allaf
Chapter

Abstract

Linear staplers have become a critical element in the surgical armamentarium of the robotic urologic surgeon and are routinely used to ligate large vessels and resect bowel segments. The most commonly used stapler is the endovascular gastrointestinal anastomosis (GIA) stapler. Specifically, these staplers are used to control the renal hilar vessels during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (RALRN) and the dorsal venous complex (DVC) during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP). As robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy (RALRC) gains popularity and intracorporeal diversions are performed, stapled bowel anastomoses present their own set of unique complications. In general, these staplers function well and provide excellent vascular control, but complications may occur, and their consequences can vary from minor to life-threatening sequelae.

Keywords

Linear stapler Medical staples Surgical stapling Stapler malfunction Stapler misfires Surgical stapling techniques MAUDE database 

Abbreviations

DVC

Dorsal venous complex

FDA

Food and Drug Administration

GIA

Gastrointestinal anastomosis

IVC

Inferior vena cava

MAUDE

Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience

MIBC

Muscle-invasive bladder cancer

RALRC

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy

RALRN

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy

RALRP

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

RRP

Radical retropubic prostatectomy

References

  1. 1.
    MAUDE - Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown SL, Woo EK. Surgical stapler-associated fatalities and adverse events reported to the food and drug administration. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;199(3):374–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deng DY, Meng MV, Nguyen HT, Bellman GC, Stoller ML. Laparoscopic linear cutting stapler failure. Urology. 2002;60(3):415–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kwazneski D, Six C, Stahlfeld K. The unacknowledged incidence of laparoscopic stapler malfunction. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2013;27(1):86–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hsi RS, Saint-Elie DT, Zimmerman GJ, Baldwin DD. Mechanisms of hemostatic failure during laparoscopic nephrectomy: review of Food and Drug Administration database. Urology. 2007;70(5):888–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chan D, Bishoff JT, Ratner L, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW. Endovascular gastrointestinal stapler device malfunction during laparoscopic nephrectomy: early recognition and management. J Urol [Internet]. 2000;164(2):319–21. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10893574\nhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022534705673491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Resorlu B, Oguz U, Polat F, Yesil S, Unsal A. Comparative analysis of pedicular vascular control techniques during laparoscopic nephrectomy: en bloc stapling or separate ligation? Urol Int [Internet]. 2015;94(1):79–82. Available from: http://www.karger.com?doi=10.1159/000363250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chung JH, Lee SW, Lee KS, Cho WY, Kim TH. Safety of en bloc ligation of the renal hilum during laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A [Internet]. 2013;23(6):489–94. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23621831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baumert H, Ballaro A, Arroyo C, Kaisary AV, Mulders PFA, Knipscheer BC. The use of polymer (hem-o-lok) clips for management of the renal hilum during laparoscopic nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2006;49(5):816–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baumert H. Reply to Peter L. Steinberg, Kwabe Pobi, David A. Axelrod and John D. Seigne’s, and Fredrik Liedberg's Letters to the Editor re: Herv?? Baumert, Andrew Ballaro, Carlos Arroyo, Amir V. Kaisary, Peter F.A. Mulders, Ben C. Knipscheer. The use of polymer. H Eur Urol. 2007;51(2):574.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Health C for D and R. Safety Communications - Weck Hem-o-Lok Ligating Clips Contraindicated for Ligation of Renal Artery during Laparoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomy: FDA and HRSA Joint Safety Communication. Center for Devices and Radiological Health.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gould DL, Borer J. Applied stapling technique in radical retropubic prostatectomy: efficient, effective and efficacious. J Urol [Internet]. 1996;155(3):1008–10. Available from: http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=8583548&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks\nfile:///Users/leezhao/Documents/Papers2/1996/Gould/JUrol1996GouldAppliedstaplingtechniqueinradicalretropubicprostatectomy efficienteffective CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muto G, Bardari F, Bozzo R, Comi L, Moroni M, Leggero R, et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy using endoscopic gastrointestinal. Eur Urol. 2001;39(suppl 2):2–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nguyen MM, Turna B, Santos BR, Frota R, Aron M, Stein RJ, et al. The use of an endoscopic stapler vs suture ligature for dorsal vein control in laparoscopic prostatectomy: operative outcomes. BJU Int. 2008;101(4):463–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu SD, Meeks JJ, Cashy J, Perry KT, Nadler RB. Suture versus staple ligation of the dorsal venous complex during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106(3):385–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chang SS, Smith JA, Cookson MS. Decreasing blood loss in patients treated with radical cystectomy: a prospective randomizes trial using a new stapling device. J Urol [Internet]. 2003;169(3):951–4. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022534705638621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thompson IM, Kappa SF, Morgan TM, Barocas DA, Bischoff CJ, Keegan KA, et al. Blood loss associated with radical cystectomy: a prospective, randomized study comparing impact LigaSure vs. stapling device. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig [Internet]. 2014;32(1):45.e11–5. Elsevier ; Available from:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trencheva K, Morrissey KP, Wells M, Mancuso CA, Lee SW, Sonoda T, et al. Identifying important predictors for anastomotic leak after colon and rectal resection prospective study on 616 patients. Ann Surg. 2013;257:108–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tyritzis SI, Hosseini A, Collins J, Nyberg T, Jonsson MN, Laurin O, et al. Oncologic, functional, and complications outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy with totally intracorporeal neobladder diversion. Eur Urol [Internet] European Assoc Urol. 2013;64(5):734–41. Available from:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.050.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Azzouni FS, Din R, Rehman S, Khan A, Shi Y, Stegemann A, et al. The first 100 consecutive, robot-assisted, intracorporeal ileal conduits: evolution of technique and 90-day outcomes. Eur Urol. 2013;63(4):637–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shao P, Li P, Ju X, Qin C, Li J, Lv Q, et al. Laparoscopic radical cystectomy with intracorporeal orthotopic ileal neobladder: technique and clinical outcomes. Urology. 2015;85(2):368–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of UrologyJohns Hopkins Hospital, University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations