Background: A dreaded complication of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is suture leak. The study aimed to assess the efficacy of the nebulized comonomer Glubran 2® (N-butyl-cyanoacrylate + metacrylosysolfolane) applied to the LSG staple line. Methods: A propensity-matched comparison analysis was conducted in 125 patients undergoing LSG between 2017 and 2019. Groups included those treated with Glubran® (group 1, n = 70) and those without Glubran® treatment (group 2, n = 55). Results: There were differences in the mean body mass index (44.4 vs 43 kg/m2; P < 0.05) between the groups. There was a non-significant increase in the operative time for group 1 compared with group 2 (97 ± 8 vs 93.8 ± 10.7 min; P = 0.07), with a greater amount of estimated blood loss (94.5 mL vs 87.8; P < 0.01). There were more severe complications in group 2 over group 1 cases (8 vs 0%; P < 0.05), although postoperative bleeding did not differ between the two groups (1.4 vs 5.4%). There were no postoperative leaks in group 1 patients, but there were two leaks in group 2 cases with an increased length of hospital stay in patients with a leak. Conclusion: Glubran® LSG support may reduce leak risk without increasing operating time.

Staple line reinforcement with nebulized cyanoacrylate glue in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: A propensity score-matched study

Martines G.
;
Tomasicchio G.
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
;
Picciariello A.
Writing – Review & Editing
;
Dibra R.
Methodology
;
Trigiante G.
Software
;
Lantone G.
Formal Analysis
;
Altomare D. F.
Writing – Review & Editing
2022-01-01

Abstract

Background: A dreaded complication of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is suture leak. The study aimed to assess the efficacy of the nebulized comonomer Glubran 2® (N-butyl-cyanoacrylate + metacrylosysolfolane) applied to the LSG staple line. Methods: A propensity-matched comparison analysis was conducted in 125 patients undergoing LSG between 2017 and 2019. Groups included those treated with Glubran® (group 1, n = 70) and those without Glubran® treatment (group 2, n = 55). Results: There were differences in the mean body mass index (44.4 vs 43 kg/m2; P < 0.05) between the groups. There was a non-significant increase in the operative time for group 1 compared with group 2 (97 ± 8 vs 93.8 ± 10.7 min; P = 0.07), with a greater amount of estimated blood loss (94.5 mL vs 87.8; P < 0.01). There were more severe complications in group 2 over group 1 cases (8 vs 0%; P < 0.05), although postoperative bleeding did not differ between the two groups (1.4 vs 5.4%). There were no postoperative leaks in group 1 patients, but there were two leaks in group 2 cases with an increased length of hospital stay in patients with a leak. Conclusion: Glubran® LSG support may reduce leak risk without increasing operating time.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11586/395222
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact