Abstract
Background
A higher incidence of gastrojejunal (GJ) anastomotic strictures has been reported following laparoscopic gastric bypass (LRYGB) with the 21 mm compared to 25 mm circular stapler. We hypothesized that the rate of stricture formation is affected by route of anvil insertion and its position relative to the gastric pouch staple line [trans‐gastric above staple line (trans‐gastric) vs. trans‐oral through staple line (trans‐oral)] following LRYGB.
Methods
Retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent LRYGB with circular stapled GJ studied in four groups: trans-gastric‐21 mm, trans-gastric‐25 mm, trans-oral‐21 mm, and trans-oral-25 mm. Primary outcome studied was GJ stricture; secondary outcomes were results with endoscopic therapy and weight loss at 12 months. Predictors studied were age, gender, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, and operative technical factors including anvil size and insertion route. Regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of GJ stricture.
Results
Eight hundred seventy-six patients underwent LRYGB. Seventy-six (8.7 %) developed a GJ stricture. The highest stricture rate occurred in the trans-gastric‐21 mm group (17 %, p < .01 for all comparisons). Stricture rates were similar for trans-gastric‐25 mm (8.4 %), trans-oral‐21 mm (5.2 %), and trans-oral‐25 mm (1.6 %) groups. Independent predictors of stricture were: trans-gastric‐21 mm (OR 10.9, 95%CI 1.4–85.1; p = .022) and age (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.95–0.99; p = .002). Endoscopic dilation relieved symptoms in all patients. There was no difference in %EWL at 12 months in patients with and without a stricture.
Conclusions
We conclude that the trans-oral-21 mm anvil is associated with a low stricture rate. With the advantage of smaller abdominal wall wound, trans-oral‐21 mm may be the preferred size and route of anvil insertion.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Buchwald H, Oien DM. Metabolic/bariatric surgery worldwide 2011. Obes Surg. 2013;23:427–36.
Schauer PR, Ikramuddin S, Gourash W, et al. Outcomes after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Ann Surg. 2000;232:515–29.
Suter M, Donadini A, Romy S, et al. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: significant long-term weight loss, improvement of obesity-related comorbidities and quality of life. Ann Surg. 2011;254:267–73.
Gonzalez R, Lin E, Venkatesh KR, et al. Gastrojejunostomy during laparoscopic gastric bypass: analysis of 3 techniques. Arch Surg. 2003;138:181–4.
Rondan A, Nijhawan S, Majid S, et al. Low anastomotic stricture rate after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass using a 21-mm circular stapling device. Obes Surg. 2012;22:1491–5.
Leyba JL, Llopis SN, Isaac J, et al. Laparoscopic gastric bypass for morbid obesity-a randomized controlled trial comparing two gastrojejunal anastomosis techniques. JSLS. 2008;12:385–8.
Nguyen NT, Stevens CM, Wolfe BM. Incidence and outcome of anastomotic stricture after laparoscopic gastric bypass. J Gastrointest Surg. 2003;7:997–1003.
Alasfar F, Sabnis AA, Liu RC, et al. Stricture rate after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric bypass with a 21-mm circular stapler: the Cleveland Clinic experience. Med Princ Pract. 2009;18:364–7.
Gould JC, Garren M, Boll V, et al. The impact of circular stapler diameter on the incidence of gastrojejunostomy stenosis and weight loss following laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1017–20.
Dolce CJ, Dunnican WJ, Kushnir L, et al. Gastrojejunal strictures after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with a 21-MM circular stapler. JSLS. 2009;13:306–11.
Blackstone RP, Rivera LA. Predicting stricture in morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a logistic regression analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:403–9.
Da Costa M, Mata A, Espinos J, et al. Endoscopic dilation of gastrojejunal anastomotic strictures after laparoscopic gastric bypass. Predictors of initial failure. Obes Surg. 2011;21:36–41.
Ukleja A, Afonso BB, Pimentel R, et al. Outcome of endoscopic balloon dilation of strictures after laparoscopic gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1746–50.
Ruiz-de-Adana JC, Lopez-Herrero J, Hernandez-Matias A, et al. Laparoscopic hand-sewn gastrojejunal anastomoses. Obes Surg. 2008;18:1074–6.
Takata MC, Ciovica R, Cello JP, et al. Predictors, treatment, and outcomes of gastrojejunostomy stricture after gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Obes Surg. 2007;17:878–84.
Fisher BL, Atkinson JD, Cottam D. Incidence of gastroenterostomy stenosis in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass using 21- or 25-mm circular stapler: a randomized prospective blinded study. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007;3:176–9.
NIH conference. Gastrointestinal surgery for severe obesity. Consensus Development Conference Panel. Ann Intern Med. 1991;115(12):956–61.
Nguyen NT, Wolfe BM. Hypopharyngeal perforation during laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2000;10:64–7.
Shabino PJ, Khoraki J, Elegbede AF, et al. Reduction of surgical site infections after laparoscopic gastric bypass with circular stapled gastrojejunostomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015.
Stahl RD, Sherer RA, Seevers CE, et al. Comparison of 21 vs. 25 mm gastrojejunostomy in the gastric bypass procedure—early results. Obes Surg. 2000;10:540–2.
Owens ML, Sczepaniak JP. Size really does matter-role of gastrojejunostomy in postoperative weight loss. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2009;5:357–61.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest.
Ethical Statement
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
Sources of Support
None
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Khoraki, J., Funk, L.M., Greenberg, J.A. et al. The Effect of Route of Anvil Insertion on Stricture Rates with Circular Stapled Gastrojejunostomy During Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass. OBES SURG 26, 517–524 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-015-1782-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-015-1782-8