Leakage Risk Stratification After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG): Is There a Role for Routine Postoperative CT Scan?

Is Routine Post-operative Biological Laboratory Assessment Necessary After Sleeve Gastrectomy?

BACKGROUND

Incidence of post-operative complications after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is low. However, the early identification of these complications remains crucial. Here, we report the impact of routine laboratory monitoring for the early diagnosis of complications after SG.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From January 2018 to December 2019, all consecutive patients who underwent primary SG (n = 457) were included. This was a comparative study of patients undergoing primary SG. Patients were divided into two groups: one group with routine laboratory monitoring performed at postoperative day (POD) 1 and 3 (LAB group) and another group without routine laboratory monitoring (control group). The study's primary endpoint was the overall impact of routine laboratory monitoring. The secondary endpoints were evaluation of patients with complications.

RESULTS

The population in the two groups were similar in term of demographic and intra-operative data. There was a statistical difference between the two groups in term of length of stay (5.7 days in the LAB group and 3.5 days in the control group (p < 0.001)). There were 19 complications (6.0%) in the LAB group and 5 complications in the control group (3.5%) (p = 0.25). A cut-off C-reactive protein level of 46.3 mg/l was found to be significant (p = 0.006). In the LAB group, 9 patients (2.9%) required readmission vs. three patients (2.0%) in the control group (p = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

The interest of routine laboratory monitoring after SG seems limited. Routine laboratory monitoring alone is not associated with earlier diagnosis of complications. This routine monitoring is associated with an increase of stay in hospital.

Risk Factors and Clinical Impacts of Post-Pancreatectomy Acute Pancreatitis After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis of 298 Patients Based on the ISGPS Definition and Grading System

Background

The definition and grading system of post-pancreatectomy acute pancreatitis (PPAP) has recently been proposed by ISGPS. This study aimed to put this definition and classification into practice and investigate the potential risk factors and clinical impacts of PPAP.

Methods

Demographic and perioperative data of consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) from January 2019 to July 2021 were collected and analyzed retrospectively. The diagnostic criteria of PPAP published by ISGPS, consisting of biochemical, radiologic, and clinical parameters, were adopted. The risk factors were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

A total of 298 patients were enrolled in this study, and the total incidence of PPAP was 52.4% (150 patients). Stratified by clinical impacts of PPAP, the incidences of grades B and C PPAP were 48.9% and 3.5%, respectively. PPAP after PD was significantly associated with pancreatic fistula and other unfavorable complications. Soft pancreatic texture (OR 3.0) and CRP ≥ 180 mg/L (OR 3.6) were the independent predictors of PPAP, AUC 0.613. Stratified by the grade of PPAP, soft pancreatic texture (OR 2.7) and CRP ≥ 180 mg/L (OR 3.4) were the independent predictors of grade B PPAP, and soft pancreatic texture (OR 19.3), operation duration >360 min (OR 13.8), and the pancreatic anastomosis by using conventional duct to mucosa methods (OR 10.4) were the independent predictors of grade C PPAP. PPAP complicated with pancreatic fistula significantly increased the severe complications and mortality compared to only PPAP occurrence.

Conclusion

PPAP was not an uncommon complication after PD and was associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes, especially since it was complicated with pancreatic fistula. Soft pancreatic texture and CRP ≥ 180 mg/L were the independent predictors of PPAP. Higher-volume multicenter and prospective studies are strongly needed.