Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Barbed versus conventional thread used in laparoscopic gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Hand-sewn gastrointestinal anastomosis during laparoscopic gastric bypass (GBP) could be performed using the conventional multifilament suture (CS) or a barbed suture (BS). This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to assess the advantages and disadvantages of these two anastomosis alternatives.

Methods

Bibliographic search for relevant studies was performed, according to the PRISMA guidelines, to perform the systematic review with meta-analysis. RevMan was applied to analyze the data using the random effects size.

Results

Eight studies were eligible for analysis including 26,340 patients. These patients underwent a single gastric bypass or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. According to the available data from this systematic review with meta-analysis, BS in GBP ensures similar morbidity rate (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.31, p = 0.74) with shorter operative time (MD = − 7.90, 95% CI: − 12.95 to − 2.84, p = 0.002). BS is similar to CS in terms of anastomotic leak (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.73, p = 0.19), stricture (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.32 to 2.44, p = 0.82), bleeding (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.20 to 1.86, p = 0.39), and hospital stay (MD: 0.04, 95% CI: − 0.28 to 1.86, p = 0.81). On the other way, BS is cheaper than CS.

Conclusion

The majority of studies were retrospectives. One study included the large majority of retained patients; thus then, this comparison should be interpreted with caution. BS and CS in gastrointestinal anastomosis during GBP are feasible and safe. BS is faster and cheaper with similar postoperative outcomes.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  1. Hedenbro JL, Näslund E, Boman L (2015) Lundeg\aardh G, Bylund A, Ekelund M, et al. Formation of the Scandinavian obesity surgery registry, SOReg. Obes Surg 25(10):1893–1900

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Toolabi K, Sarkardeh M, Vasigh M, Golzarand M, Vezvaei P, Kooshki J (2020) Comparison of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy on weight Loss, weight regain, and remission of comorbidities: a 5 years of follow-up study. Obes Surg 30(2):440–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mason EE, Ito C (1969) Gastric bypass. Ann Surg 170(3):329–339

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gonzalez R (2003) Gastrojejunostomy during laparoscopic gastric bypass: analysis of 3 techniques. Arch Surg 138(2):181–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jarry J, Wagner T, de Pommerol M, Cunha AS, Collet D (2012) Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: comparison between hand-sewn and mechanical gastrojejunostomy. Updat Surg 64(1):25–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ferrer-Márquez M, Belda-Lozano R (2016) Barbed sutures in general and digestive surgery. Rev Cir Esp Engl Ed 94(2):65–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee S-W, Kawai M, Tashiro K, Nomura E, Tokuhara T, Kawashima S, Tanaka R, Uchiyama K (2016) Laparoscopic gastrointestinal anastomoses using knotless barbed absorbable sutures are safe and reproducible: a single-center experience with 242 patients. Jpn J Clin Oncol 46(4):329–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 343:d5928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25(9):603–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73(9):712–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG (2004) CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. Bmj. 328(7441):702–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bures C, Seika P, Denecke C, Pratschke J, Zorron R (2019) Routine use of V-Lock® suture for bariatric anastomosis is safe: comparative results from consecutive case series. ABCD Arq Bras Cir Dig São Paulo 32(3):e1452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Costantino F, Dente M, Perrin P, Sarhan FA, Keller P (2013) Barbed unidirectional V-Loc 180 suture in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a study comparing unidirectional barbed monofilament and multifilament absorbable suture. Surg Endosc 27(10):3846–3851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Blasi V, Facy O, Goergen M, Poulain V, De Magistris L, Azagra JS (2013) Barbed versus usual suture for closure of the gastrojejunal anastomosis in laparoscopic gastric bypass: a comparative trial. Obes Surg 23(1):60–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gys B, Gys T, Lafullarde T (2017) The use of unidirectional knotless barbed suture for enterotomy closure in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a randomized comparative study. Obes Surg 27(8):2159–2163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Milone M, Di Minno MND, Galloro G, Maietta P, Bianco P, Milone F et al (2013) Safety and efficacy of barbed suture for gastrointestinal suture: a prospective and randomized study on obese patients undergoing gastric bypass. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 23(9):756–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pennestrì F, Gallucci P, Prioli F, Giustacchini P, Ciccoritti L, Sessa L, Bellantone R, Raffaelli M (2019) Barbed vs conventional sutures in bariatric surgery: a propensity score analysis from a high-volume center. Updat Surg 71(1):113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tyner RP, Clifton GT, Fenton SJ (2013) Hand-sewn gastrojejunostomy using knotless unidirectional barbed absorbable suture during laparoscopic gastric bypass. Surg Endosc 27(4):1360–1366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vidarsson B, Sundbom M, Edholm D (2017) Shorter overall operative time when barbed suture is used in primary laparoscopic gastric bypass: a cohort study of 25,006 cases. Surg Obes Relat Dis 13(9):1484–1488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Abdel-Galil E, Sabry AA (2002) Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass–evaluation of three different techniques. Obes Surg 12(5):639–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bendewald FP, Choi JN, Blythe LS, Selzer DJ, Ditslear JH, Mattar SG (2011) Comparison of hand-sewn, linear-stapled, and circular-stapled gastrojejunostomy in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg 21(11):1671–1675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Donnellan NM, Mansuria SM (2011) Small bowel obstruction resulting from laparoscopic vaginal cuff closure with a barbed suture. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(4):528–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Segura-Sampedro JJ, Ashrafian H, Navarro-Sánchez A, Jenkins JT, Morales-Conde S, Martínez-Isla A (2015) Small bowel obstruction due to laparoscopic barbed sutures: an unknown complication? Rev Esp Enferm Dig 107(11):677–680

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wiggins T, Majid MS, Markar SR, Loy J, Agrawal S, Koak Y (2020) Benefits of barbed suture utilisation in gastrointestinal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 102(2):153–159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Digestive Surgery, Fattouma Bourguiba Hospital, Monastir University, Monastir, Tunisia

    Mohamed Ali Chaouch, Tarek Kellil, Sahbi Khaled Taieb & Khadija Zouari

Authors
  1. Mohamed Ali Chaouch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tarek Kellil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sahbi Khaled Taieb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Khadija Zouari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors participated in the study on the conception, design of the research, acquisition of the data, analysis, and interpretation of the data. MAC and TK contributed to the drafting of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed Ali Chaouch.

Ethics declarations

This research involves human participants. It is a retrospective analysis of published cases and did not require informed consent. Ethics approval and consent to participate were not applicable in this review.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chaouch, M.A., Kellil, T., Taieb, S.K. et al. Barbed versus conventional thread used in laparoscopic gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 406, 1015–1022 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-020-01979-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-020-01979-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation