Download PDF
Review  |  Open Access  |  11 Sep 2024

Endoscopic management of complications after sleeve gastrectomy: a narrative review

Views: 137 |  Downloads: 47 |  Cited:  0
Mini-invasive Surg 2024;8:18.
10.20517/2574-1225.2024.30 |  © The Author(s) 2024.
Author Information
Article Notes
Cite This Article

Abstract

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has become the most widely performed bariatric procedure globally due to its technical simplicity and proven efficacy. However, complications following SG, including bleeding, leakage, fistulas, stenosis, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and hiatal hernia (HH), remain a significant concern. Endoscopic interventions have emerged as valuable minimally invasive alternatives to traditional surgical approaches for managing these complications. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the endoscopic management strategies available for addressing the various complications encountered after SG, emphasizing their critical role in optimizing patient outcomes.

Keywords

Endoscopy, sleeve gastrectomy, complications, leakage, fistula, stenosis, gastroesophageal reflux disease

INTRODUCTION

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has emerged as a preferred bariatric procedure, lauded for its technical simplicity and efficacy in long-term weight reduction. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) data underscores its dominance in the United States, utilized both as a standalone intervention and as the initial phase of a staged approach for high-risk patients[1-3]. However, SG is not without risks, encompassing both mechanical and metabolic complications that demand comprehensive clinical understanding[4,5].

The advent of endoscopic interventions has revolutionized post-SG complication management, offering minimally invasive alternatives to traditional surgical approaches[6]. These techniques effectively address a broad spectrum of complications while minimizing surgical morbidity[7,8]. As the field of bariatric endoscopy evolves, these innovative strategies are poised to play a pivotal role in enhancing patient outcomes and quality of life.

This chapter explores endoscopic management strategies for post-SG complications, emphasizing the efficacy of minimally invasive interventions. By leveraging these advanced techniques and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, we aim to optimize clinical outcomes and improve the long-term prognosis for SG patients.

BLEEDING

Postoperative bleeding in SG has seen a significant reduction from early incidence rates of 6%-15% to current rates of 1%-6%, attributed to advancements in surgical techniques[9-12]. Common sites of extraluminal bleeding include the extensive staple line along the sleeve conduit, omental vessels, trocar sites, and areas of liver or splenic injury[13,14]. Intraluminal bleeding is less frequent in SG compared to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), although both complications are relatively uncommon[15].

Patients typically present with melena, hematochezia, or hemodynamic instability necessitating blood transfusion. While most cases are self-limiting and amenable to conservative management, persistent hemodynamic instability may warrant emergency intervention[16,17]. For SG-related bleeding, radiological interventions are primarily employed for splenic or short gastric vessel bleeding, whereas endoscopic management is more commonly utilized for gastrojejunostomy bleeding in RYGB[17].

Endoscopic intervention for intraluminal bleeding post-SG presents several challenges. The everted staple line of the sleeve conduit is not easily accessible using conventional endoscopic methods. The narrow lumen restricts endoscopic manipulation, and limited suction capacity impedes visualization of the bleeding site. Additionally, CO2 insufflation during endoscopy may complicate emergency laparoscopy if required[16].

Despite these challenges, recent advancements in therapeutic endoscopy have expanded treatment options. These techniques, now considered primary treatment modalities, include endoscopic clips, suturing, injection of epinephrine or sclerosing agents, and thermal therapies such as contact probes and argon plasma coagulation (APC)[17]. A careful risk-benefit analysis is essential when considering endoscopic intervention to ensure optimal patient outcomes and minimize the need for more invasive surgical procedures.

LEAKAGE

Staple line leakage is one of the most severe complications following SG. Historical data indicate leak rates ranging from 1.1% to 4.7%, with a leak-related mortality rate of 0.4%[18-20]. Leakage occurs when the increased intraluminal pressure exceeds the tissue and staple line strength, resulting from both mechanical/tissue factors and ischemia[21]. Researchers have attempted to identify risk factors associated with elevated intraluminal pressure leading to leakage, including bougie size, distance from the pylorus, surgical experience, and various staple line reinforcement methods[18]. Surgical technical factors contributing to leakage include inadequate stapler height, bougie size less than 40 French, excessive traction during stapling, and extensive dissection resulting in ischemia. Leakage may also occur secondary to sleeve stenosis or torsion[11]. Figure 1 illustrates two key diagnostic imaging modalities used to detect SG leaks.

Endoscopic management of complications after sleeve gastrectomy: a narrative review

Figure 1. Sleeve leak. (A) An UGI series showing contrast extravasation; (B) Endoscopic view of the leak site with visible sutures and inflammation. UGI: Upper gastrointestinal.

Leaks primarily occur at the esophagogastric junction and angle of His, accounting for 89% of cases, and are typically diagnosed after discharge[22]. Leaks can be classified based on time of presentation or radiological findings[11,23,24]. The former categorizes leaks as acute (within 7 days), early (within 1 to 6 weeks), late (after 6 weeks), and chronic (after 12 weeks)[23]. The latter, proposed in a recent study, classifies leaks according to computed tomography (CT) scan findings into class 1 (phlegmon associated with the staple line), class 2 (fluid collection), class 3 (contrast leak), and class 4 (chronic fistula)[24]. Immediate management should be tailored to the severity of the leak. Hemodynamically unstable patients with symptomatic leakage should undergo immediate surgical intervention; however, most cases can be managed with various therapeutic endoscopic methods[23,25].

The success rate of endoscopic leak management varies depending on the time of diagnosis. For early leaks, the success rate of endoscopic treatment ranges from 74% to 85%[26]. However, the probability of successful endoscopic fistula treatment decreases over time, reaching 48.5% at 6 months and 41.7% at 12 months in a multicenter study[27].

The principles of leak management include adequate drainage, fistula closure, gastric decompression, and appropriate nutritional support[28,29]. The initial step in treating a leak is surgical, radiological, or endoscopic drainage of the abscess or fluid collection to control the infectious process[26,30]. Despite the lack of standardized treatment algorithms, endoscopic treatment has become the initial option for stable patients. However, the ASMBS position statement does not favor one treatment over another[29].

When selecting an endoscopic method, the type of leak, size of the fistula, and presence of stenosis must be evaluated[31]. Endoscopic treatment can be classified into four categories: (1) endoscopic wall closure or covering; (2) active internal drainage; (3) passive internal drainage; and (4) plugging[32]. In cases accompanied by gastric stenosis, management for decompression should also be considered[26].

For acute or early leaks, endoscopic treatment for direct wall closure or wall exclusion (covering), with or without a drainage procedure, may be attempted. These include stents, clips, and endoscopic suturing[25,26,30,32]. Among these, endoscopic self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) were first used by Eisendrath et al. in 2007 and are the most common method for managing leakage after bariatric surgery[25,33,34]. According to one treatment algorithm, stents can be used depending on the size of the leak and the presence or absence of gastric stenosis[35]. Generally, if the fistula is small, only drainage or direct wall closure can be attempted. If the fistula is large or accompanied by stenosis, a stent may be considered as the first treatment[25,26,30,35,36]. The advantages of stents include a reduced number of additional procedures required, safer resumption of early oral nutrition, and a significant reduction in hospital stay[37]. The success rate of stent procedures in cases of leakage ranges from 66.7% to 95%[31,33,34,38-41].

SEMS are currently available in various configurations, including uncovered (bare metal), partially covered, and fully covered stents. However, for the management of post-bariatric surgery leaks, uncovered stents are not considered useful. Partially covered SEMS have exposed metal portions at both ends to improve adhesion by allowing tissue ingrowth[41-43]. While this reduces stent migration, it may be associated with an increased risk of stent-related adverse events, such as difficulty in stent removal, bleeding, perforation, and subsequent stricture or fistula[25,26,40-43]. Timely stent removal within 10-14 days of placement is important to reduce this risk[44].

In contrast, fully covered SEMS do not allow tissue ingrowth or overgrowth and are therefore easier to remove than partially covered stents[45,46]. Despite this advantage, fully covered SEMS are more prone to migration, which is a major factor affecting treatment strategies[26,42,43,45,46]. Reported migration rates for fully covered SEMS are up to one-third or more of patients[26,42,43,47,48]. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that stent migration is less significant after SG compared to RYGB due to the presence of the pylorus, which prevents the stent from entering the intestine and potentially requiring surgical removal. To reduce dislodgement, various strategies such as endoscopic snares, clips, and anchoring sutures are attempted[26,42,47-51].

A long, fully covered Mega stent designed to prevent migration has been developed, providing a tighter seal with a wider diameter, better fixation, and a longer bypass length covering the entire sleeve. This type of stent has demonstrated significant reductions in migration rates, with several authors reporting rates ranging from 0% to 21.6%[26,31,36,37,52]. Nevertheless, its large size and poor tolerance limit its clinical use, as it causes nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain requiring early removal and is also associated with significant prepyloric mucosal ulceration related to the wide distal landing zone[26,31,36]. Currently, there is insufficient evidence regarding the superiority and effectiveness of any particular type of stent for treating leaks. The choice largely depends on the preference and experience of the endoscopist[26,53]. Figure 2 illustrates the process of SEMS placement through a series of fluoroscopic and endoscopic images, showcasing the various stages of stent deployment.

Endoscopic management of complications after sleeve gastrectomy: a narrative review

Figure 2. SEMS placement. (A) Fluoroscopy image demonstrating contrast extravasation following SG; (B) Radiographic view of external marker placement and guidewire insertion into the gastric lumen; (C) Fluoroscopic visualization of stent progression along the guidewire; (D) Stent expansion during deployment; (E) Endoscopic advancement post-stent placement; (F) Endoscopic visualization of the fully deployed stent in situ. SEMS: Self-expandable metal stents; SG: sleeve gastrectomy.

The duration of stent placement varies depending on the type of stent used. For fully covered stents, the recommended duration is typically 3 to 10 weeks, and many experts recommend stent removal at 6 to 8 weeks to allow sufficient time for healing[26,44,53-55]. However, when partially covered stents are used, they are usually removed within 10-14 days to prevent significant tissue ingrowth, which can lead to difficulties in stent removal and potential complications[55,56]. To illustrate this point, Figure 3 provides a striking example of tissue ingrowth in a partially covered stent after 8 weeks. This visual evidence underscores the critical importance of adhering to recommended removal timeframes to avoid such complications and ensure optimal patient outcomes.

Endoscopic management of complications after sleeve gastrectomy: a narrative review

Figure 3. Tissue in-growth at 8 weeks.

Weekly endoscopic evaluation may be helpful in the early detection of stent dislodgement and appropriate management of subsequent complications[26,53]. Previous studies often reported an average of 1 to 7 repeat endoscopic procedures[37,53]. In cases of stent dislodgement, the stent can be repositioned or replaced with a new stent. Stents can be used in conjunction with other internal drainage or wall defect closure techniques to promote leak closure[26,30,31,37,53]. For small fistulas, endoscopic direct wall closure may be attempted using clips, tissue adhesives, or sutures in cases of acute or early leakage[11,25,26,30,32]. The choice of techniques is determined by the size and tissue condition, as well as the endoscopist’s preference[26,31,53].

Generally, two types of clips are available to manage leaks: through-the-scope clips (TTSC) and over-the-scope clips (OTSC)[7,11,26,57]. Conventional TTSC, although technically more feasible, has limited use and is only employed for mildly inflamed tissue less than 1 cm[7,11,26,57]. These clips are usually applied in a consecutive, parallel manner with a suction maneuver to enhance the approximation of tissue margins. However, the potential for premature dislodgement of clips and inadequate sealing are associated with TTSC, necessitating repeat procedures or a combination of other treatment modalities[7,26]. OTSC, on the other hand, can achieve full-thickness approximation of tissue defects, providing higher strength and better sealing. While more technically challenging due to the use of suction or additional grasping tools, OTSC can be used for defects up to 3 cm and has a success rate of 70%-100% for leak management[7,11,26,58-60]. Failure of fistula closure using OTSC may occur secondary to poor tissue integrity related to ischemia or inflammation, difficulty in obtaining a right-angle endoscopic view for adequate repair, or high intraluminal pressure due to distal gastric stenosis[26,61].

Tissue sealants and plugs have also been used to manage leaks[7,11,26,31,32,53,62-64]. The advantages of this method include ease of use, absence of major complications, low cost, possibility of combination with other endoscopic treatment modalities, and the ability to repeat the treatment as needed[65]. Two types of tissue sealants are commonly used for endoscopic injections: fibrin glue and cyanoacrylate[7,26,53]. Fibrin glue rapidly forms a clot that can mechanically occlude the inner orifice and promotes healing by inducing neovascularization and fibroblast proliferation. Cyanoacrylate is a synthetic glue that works as a mechanical sealant, hardening quickly on contact with a weak base to form a cast[7,11,26,63,64]. Fibrin glue is effective, but repeat endoscopic procedures are usually required to close the fistula. Cyanoacrylate has several advantages over fibrin glue, including a longer period of hydrolysis and removal (1-6 months), the requirement of only small amounts, and a cost approximately 6 times less than fibrin glue. However, poor mechanical properties, brittleness, possible pro-inflammatory effects, and the risk of damage to the endoscope due to rapid polymerization make cyanoacrylate a suboptimal choice[63].

A sealant can be applied via a double-lumen catheter after the target area has been dried to promote clot formation. Before applying the sealant, it is recommended to use APC or a cytology brush to exfoliate the epithelium of the target area[7,26,53]. Appropriate patient selection is also important to achieve good results. Small, short, thin, and clean fistula tracts tend to close quickly[26,63]. Although sealants can be used alone or in combination with other treatment modalities, a 2015 review of the ASMBS position statement states that “in the setting of a SG staple line leak, it is rarely successful as a standalone treatment and is more commonly used in combination with other endoscopic treatment modalities”[29,65].

Endoscopic suturing techniques were first introduced by Swain and Mills in the mid-1980s and were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in 1998[66,67]. These techniques are specially designed to simulate manual suturing for all tissue types and allow for the placement of continuous or interrupted full-thickness sutures of various lengths, expanding their applications to a variety of fields, including the treatment of gastrointestinal defects such as fistulas, anastomotic leaks, and perforations[66-68]. Recently, endoscopic suturing has been used in combination with stents for anchorage to manage leaks[26,42,66-68].

As with applying a tissue sealant, the procedure begins with de-epithelialization of the edge of the leak prior to the placement of endoscopic sutures[69]. Several articles have reported on the treatment of leaks using endoscopic suturing systems with varying success rates[67,70-74]. However, data on the successful closure of leaks and fistulas after SG using direct endoscopic suturing are still limited[26,67]. In summary, although the treatment of leaks with endoscopic suturing is safe and somewhat successful, long-term clinical success without combination with other treatment modalities is more compromised than immediate or short-term outcomes[26,67,74].

Drainage procedures are crucial in treating leaks under any condition because the presence of fluid accumulation or debris needs to be removed from the leak cavity to promote healing[26]. For the treatment of late-stage and chronic leakage, endoscopic wall closure or covering procedures are less effective, and therefore endoscopic drainage procedures are recommended[75]. Drainage can be divided into two types: active and passive[32]. Nasocystic drainage is a form of active drainage that involves a drainage device with active intermittent suction and is used when there are large collections that require repeated irrigation to remove pus and debris. Because this catheter can cause significant discomfort, catheter placement is usually performed only for a short period and is often combined with transfistulary drainage[26,30,32,76].

Transfistulary double pigtail stent (DPS) or endoscopic internal drainage (EID) is a form of passive drainage used for prolonged placement to induce re-epithelialization and stimulate tissue growth, keeping the fistula tract open and promoting drainage into the gastric lumen. This results in the collapse of the abscess cavity and closure of the leak[11,26,32,76]. The stent is delivered via an orifice that places one end inside the cavity to drain and the other end in the gastric lumen to prevent migration. It should be replaced every 4-6 weeks until fully healed[25,77]. Clinical success rates vary from 70% to 85%[26,76-80]. Figure 4 illustrates the step-by-step process of EID, while Figure 5 showcases a radiographic view of a combined approach, showing the simultaneous use of a DPS for internal drainage and an over-the-scope clip for defect closure. This combination exemplifies how endoscopic techniques can be synergistically employed in complex cases.

Endoscopic management of complications after sleeve gastrectomy: a narrative review

Figure 4. EID. (A) Endoscopic view of fistula with intra-abdominal drain and guidewire introduction into gastric lumen; (B) Fluoroscopic visualization of guidewire placement and OTSC application; (C and D) DPS advancement along guidewire through fistular tract into intra-abdominal cavity for internal drainage; (E and F) Endoscopic view of DPS deployment within gastric lumen. EID: Endoscopic internal drainage; OTSC: over-the-scope clips; DPS: double pigtail stent.

Endoscopic management of complications after sleeve gastrectomy: a narrative review

Figure 5. Leakage management using DPS and OTSC. DPS: Double pigtail stent; OTSC: over-the-scope clips.

Donatelli et al. reported the use of DPS for leak management combined with enteral nutrition [endoscopic internal drainage with enteral nutrition (EDEN)], a treatment modality that had a 95% success rate[81]. DPS offers several advantages in leak management. First, it can be applied to both acute/early and chronic/late leakage[26,76,77,79,82]. Second, despite the need to perform endoscopy multiple times, there appears to be a cost-saving effect due to ease of management, shortened hospitalization period, and early enteral nutrition[77,80,82-84]. Third, it is generally well tolerated, with minimal patient discomfort and few complications[11,77,79,80,84]. However, significant complications related to DPS, mainly associated with drain migration, have been reported. Migration can occur into the abdominal cavity at the time of placement or later and can usually be managed endoscopically[83,84]. A series of rare but potentially life-threatening cases have been reported, including massive splenic hemorrhage, splenic abscess, and portal vein gas, suggesting the need for close follow-up and early removal in case of drain migration[84-88].

Endoscopic or endoluminal vacuum therapy (EVT) is a technique that rapidly controls leak-related sepsis by absorbing fluids through the application of negative pressure to the defect area using an electronically controlled vacuum device along with a polyurethane sponge placed at the end of a drainage tube inserted through an endoscope. Several studies have reported this effective and feasible treatment modality, which allows stepwise closure of the defect and sufficient drainage in the infected area, reducing the risk of contamination or superinfection, accelerating granulation tissue formation, and promoting tissue perfusion[26,89-92]. Success rates reported in previous studies range from 84% to 100%[26,89-94].

EVT can be used alone or in combination with other treatment modalities and is also used as a means of support in conjunction with surgical revision[90,91]. Like other endoscopic treatment methods, EVT requires repeated endoscopic sessions because the sponge generally needs to be replaced every 3 to 5 days, depending on the lesional findings and clinical course[11,91]. Compared to stents, EVT showed a higher success rate, lower mortality, and a lower incidence of stricture[91,94-98]. However, although the observed efficacy of EVT was slightly lower than EID, EID was associated with a significantly longer treatment duration[99]. Combinations with different treatment modalities, such as EVT with SEMS and EVT with OTSC, have been reported in complex cases[96].

Endoscopic septotomy is a relatively new technique that divides the septum separating the perigastric cavity from the gastric cavity using a needle knife or APC, allowing communication between both cavities to equalize cavity pressure and promote secretion into the stomach. These changes ultimately lead to the collapse of the cavity and clinical resolution[26,100,101]. It was initially attempted for chronic leaks with leak sizes greater than 10 mm, where an endoscope can be passed into the cavity to overcome the limitations of diversion therapy, which has poor clinical success when the sinus tract is well established, and the fistula is large or chronic[102,103]. Septotomy is usually combined with balloon dilation of the distal sleeve stenosis to promote drainage[100,102,103].

Reported clinical success rates in case series range from 80% to 100%, and the concept and mechanism of EID suggest that septotomy is an excellent treatment option for the management of fistulas after SG[26,100,101,103-108]. However, it should be performed at least one month after surgery, when a stable septum has formed[104]. Additionally, while the septum is prone to bleeding due to inflammation, bleeding tends to occur less frequently when APC electrocautery is used[26,100,103].

FISTULA

A fistula, often used synonymously with the term leak, is an abnormal communication between two epithelialized surfaces. Fistulas can be categorized as internal, connecting an abdominal organ to another organ, or external, extending from an abdominal organ to the body surface. Chronic fistulas typically arise from long-standing, untreated leaks and are characterized by epithelialized tracts surrounded by unhealthy tissue, which adversely affects spontaneous closure and treatment success[26,75,109]. Various endoscopic approaches and devices, including closure, covering, and drainage modalities, have been employed in the management of fistulas, with varying degrees of efficacy[75,109,110].

Biomaterial plugs have emerged as a promising option for the treatment of long-standing and refractory fistulas[26,53,111]. The Surgisis AFP plug (Cook Biotech, West Lafayette, IN), an acellular matrix biomaterial derived from porcine small intestine, has demonstrated success in promoting the closure of leaks and fistulas by stimulating fibroblast proliferation[53,112]. Initially developed for the management of anal fistulas, this biomaterial has shown promising results in the treatment of enterocutaneous fistulas following bariatric surgery[111,112]. The plug can be inserted either endoscopically or percutaneously, and multiple plugs can be placed adjacent to a large-diameter fistula[26,53,111]. Studies evaluating the use of sealant plugs for fistula closure in bariatric patients have reported an overall success rate of 80%[26].

Cardiac septal defect occluder (CSDO) is an innovative technique that has shown favorable outcomes in the management of gastrointestinal disruptions. This double-disc, self-expanding closure device, constructed from nitinol and interwoven polyester, promotes occlusion and tissue ingrowth. Several studies have reported the off-label use of CSDO for the treatment of late and chronic leakage, with a technical success rate of 100% and a clinical success rate of 77.3%[26,109,113]. While CSDO appears to be an effective alternative for the management of chronic fistulas, research data are still limited. To promote more widespread use, further studies are necessary to validate previously reported results and clarify the indications for this technique[110,114].

STENOSIS

Stenosis or obstruction flowing SG is one of the most common complications, with an incidence ranging from 0.1% to 3.9%, along with leakage. It can manifest as nausea, vomiting, regurgitation, dyspepsia, retrosternal burning pain, early satiety, abdominal pain, and rapid weight loss. Endoscopic and fluoroscopic examinations are essential for confirming the diagnosis of stenosis. There are two distinct types of stenosis: functional (helix stenosis) and mechanical[26,115-118].

Functional stenosis, the most prevalent type, is caused by abnormal rotation, kinking, and twisting of the sleeve associated with unequal traction of the anterior and posterior gastric walls during stapling. This may result in a sharp angulation or indentation at the incisura of the remnant stomach, creating a flap valve that impedes proper gastric emptying. Complete obstruction preventing endoscope passage is uncommon in this condition[26,115-118].

The second, less frequent type is mechanical stenosis, which can occur anywhere proximal to the sleeve and is typically described on endoscopy as a stricture or mucosal narrowing, rendering endoscope passage difficult or impossible[26,115-118]. Over-sewing the staple line or using an excessively small bougie may contribute to the development of this narrowing or stricture[25,119].

Prompt identification and treatment are crucial, as upstream pressure from the stenosis contributes to the development and prolongation of gastric leaks. Treatment options for stenosis include observation/expectant management, endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD), stent insertion, stricturotomy, and revisional surgery[26,120].

The endoscopic management of sleeve stenosis has been extensively discussed in the literature, with several authors proposing treatment algorithms involving staged balloon dilation and long-term placement of fully covered SEMs in cases where dilation fails[118,121-124]. However, the clinical success rates of endoscopic treatment for stenosis are heterogenous, ranging from 44% to 100%[115,120,121,125].

EBD is the cornerstone of stenosis treatment, but many technical details, such as balloon size, duration, and the number of sessions, remain controversial, with no established guidelines to suggest optimal dilation parameters[123,124]. Nonetheless, a large meta-analysis examining the efficacy of EBD for the treatment of sleeve stenosis reported an overall success rate of 76%[124]. A significant contributing factor of the success of EBD may be the physician’s expertise with the type of balloon used. Few studies have compared multiple balloon types, but evidence suggests that larger achalasia balloons provide a more robust dilation compared to through-the-scope controlled radial expansion (CRE) balloons[116,122,124]. However, a meta-analysis found that neither balloon type nor initial balloon dilation size affected the overall EBD success rate. Although anecdotal reports from multiple studies may indicate the potential advantages of achalasia balloons, the selection of the specific balloon type may be contingent upon its availability and the extent of the stenotic segment[116,124]. A significant limitation in the existing literature is the failure of most studies to report the length of the stenotic segment, thereby impeding comprehensive analysis[124,126].

The debate regarding routine repeated dilation versus on-demand dilation for EBD persists. It is generally accepted that repetitive EBD is more efficacious in treating stenosis. According to the studies, the likelihood of success decreases significantly beyond the third dilatation with the same balloon size. However, switching to a larger balloon size after three failed attempts may increase success rates in subsequent dilations[124]. A main concern regarding the use of larger balloons is the risk of perforation. However, the reported serious adverse event rate is only 0.9%. To mitigate the risk associated with EBD, a meticulous endoscopic evaluation is crucial prior to the procedure. This evaluation serves not only to delineate the characteristics of the stenosis but also to detect any structural abnormalities that may predispose to perforation. Undoubtedly, precise positioning of the balloon is paramount, as it enhances the likelihood of successful dilation while concurrently minimizing the potential for perforation[124].

In cases where stenosis persists despite multiple attempts at EBD, the placement of stents may be warranted. A few studies have explored the utilization of SEMS as the sole treatment modality for stenosis, reporting a pooled success rate of 95.5%[117,127-130]. A meta-analysis demonstrated that the endoscopic deployment of SEMS yielded a success rate of 70%, and the inclusion of stents as a subsequent therapeutic option following EBD elevated the overall endoscopic success rate from 76% to 78%[124]. Notably, no instances of stent migration were reported, and the rate of other adverse events was insignificant. However, the use of SEMS for stenosis management remains an understudied area, and further comparative studies are necessary to establish the optimal treatment strategy[124,127].

A novel technique, termed endoscopic tunneled stricturotomy, has recently been described by De Moura et al., which draws upon the principles of per-oral endoscopic myotomy[131,132]. The underlying cause of helix functional stenosis is anatomic, arising from the spiral configuration of the sleeve, which consequently leads to increased luminal pressure at the narrowed segment. To address this issue, Zundel et al. have employed endoscopic needle cautery incisions in all four quadrants of the muscle layer, following pneumatic dilation, aiming to achieve more sustained results in certain patients as an adjunctive method[118,133]. Although limited case studies have reported successful outcomes with this approach, it could potentially serve as an alternative option after the failure of conventional treatments. However, further research is necessary to establish its overall efficacy and safety profile[131,132].

GERD

GERD is a significant concern following SG, with both de novo cases and exacerbation of pre-existing symptoms reported. The etiology is multifactorial, involving disruption of anatomical anti-reflux mechanisms, decreased gastric compliance, elevated gastric pressure, and alterations in gastric anatomy such as strictures, angulations, or torsion of the gastric tube, and/or the persistence of a significant portion of the gastric fundus[134,135].

Clinical manifestations range from asymptomatic cases to both typical and atypical GERD symptoms. Endoscopic findings may include non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), esophagitis, and Barrett’s esophagus (BE)[134]. Long-term studies, such as the Finnish Sleeve versus Bypass (SLEEVEPASS) Randomized Clinical Trial and the Swiss Multicenter Bypass or Sleeve Study (SM-BOSS) Trial, reveal high rates of GERD symptoms, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) dependency, and endoscopic abnormalities post-SG. The SLEEVEPASS trial reported a 31% prevalence of esophagitis and 4% incidence of de novo BE at 10 years post-SG[136,137]. The ASMBS recommends routine endoscopic screening for BE at 3 years post-SG and subsequent surveillance every 5 years, regardless of symptomatology. This recommendation is supported by studies indicating that many patients with endoscopic abnormalities may be asymptomatic[138].

While GERD symptoms post-SG are prevalent, conservative management is often efficacious, with revisional surgery indicated in only 3.1% of cases[134,139]. Emerging endoscopic anti-reflux treatments, such as the Stretta procedure and anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARM), are being proposed as alternatives to traditional surgery[140]. The Stretta procedure, utilizing radiofrequency ablation to augment lower esophageal sphincter (LES) function, has demonstrated efficacy in mitigating esophageal acid sensitivity and reducing gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) distensibility in general GERD cases[140,141]. However, preliminary trials in post-SG patients have yielded suboptimal outcomes, suggesting potential limitations in this specific cohort[142]. Conversely, ARM, involving partial circumferential mucosectomy at the GEJ, has shown high feasibility and efficacy rates of up to 83.3% in alleviating refractory GERD symptoms in post-bariatric patients with confirmed acid reflux[140,143]. Despite current limitations, ongoing research is expected to yield additional validated evidence and novel approaches, potentially refining GERD management in the context of bariatric surgery.

HIATAL HERNIA

Hiatal hernia (HH) is a common finding in SG patients, but the development of de novo HH postoperatively is less characterized[144,145]. Intrathoracic sleeve migration (ITSM), the herniation of the gastric sleeve into the thoracic cavity, occurs in 5%-35% of cases, with one study reporting up to 72.5%[146,147]. Clinical presentation may involve reflux-related symptoms, which can confound diagnosis due to reflux being a common obesity co-morbidity, or dysphagia and pain in cases of sleeve incarceration[146].

The etiology of de novo HH is multifactorial. Contributing factors include surgical techniques (dissection of the angle of His and left diaphragmatic pillar, fat pad removal), anatomical changes (tubular sleeve shape, division of phrenogastric and phrenoesophageal ligaments), and postoperative factors (negative intrathoracic pressure, rapid weight loss, crural fat atrophy). These changes can lead to GEJ migration, forming a type I HH and reducing LES pressure, a key factor in GERD development. Many of these mechanisms are inherent to SG technique and non-modifiable[147].

The management of ITSM may involve cruroplasty, conversion to RYGB, conversion to one anastomosis gastric bypass, or re-sleeve and gastropexy, depending on the results of the diagnostic workup and the condition of the diaphragmatic pillars during surgery[146]. Although there is currently no suitable endoscopic management option for ITSM, it is essential to recognize this underreported complication of SG and consider its implications in the management of post-bariatric surgical patients[146,147].

ENDOSCOPIC FAILURE

Surgical intervention is warranted when endoscopic techniques fail or hemodynamic instability occurs. The approach is tailored to the specific complication, ranging from simple drainage to complex reconstruction. Common procedures include Roux-en-Y bypasses (esophago-jejunal or gastro-jejunal) and, occasionally, fistulo-jejunal anastomoses. This array of surgical options enables targeted management of postoperative complications[148]. Acute complications, such as staple line failures, may warrant immediate reoperation. Later revisions typically address problems like stenosis or medically refractory GERD[149]. Figure 6 illustrates various scenarios of endoscopic failure, including intra-abdominal abscess formation, uncontrolled leakage, pathological connections between abdominal and thoracic cavities, and gastro-bronchial fistula, emphasizing the need for surgical intervention in complex cases.

Endoscopic management of complications after sleeve gastrectomy: a narrative review

Figure 6. Endoscopic failure. (A) Large intra-abdominal abscess formation following SG; (B) Uncontrolled leakage following endoscopic management; (C) Pathological connection between abdominal and thoracic cavities due to abdominal abscess; (D and E) Gastro-bronchial fistula; (F) After resolution. SG: Sleeve gastrectomy.

Clinical evidence suggests that persisting with multiple endoscopic interventions may be suboptimal. Timely progression to surgical management could potentially reduce patient discomfort and overall healthcare expenses[150]. This approach balances conservative care with prompt surgical intervention when necessary, aiming to optimize patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, while SG has become the most popular bariatric procedure worldwide, complications remain a significant concern. A concerted effort to standardize surgical techniques and adopt evidence-based recommendations for minimally invasive treatments is ongoing, with the goal of optimizing patient outcomes. Healthcare professionals must possess a fundamental understanding of common complications and available treatment options, and a multidisciplinary team with specialized experience in bariatric surgery is best equipped to manage the complex needs of post-bariatric surgical patients. As endoscopic modalities continue to advance, they offer an increasingly important minimally invasive treatment option for addressing post-bariatric surgical complications.

DECLARATIONS

Authors’ contributions

Made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, data acquisition, data interpretation, drafted and revised the manuscript: Lee S

Made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, provided critical input to the revision, and commented on previous versions of the manuscript: Dang J

Made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, commented on previous versions of the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published: Kroh M

Provided technical support: Chaivanijchaya K, Farah A

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Financial support and sponsorship

None.

Conflicts of interest

Dang J is the Junior Editorial Board Member of the journal Mini-invasive Surgery, while the other authors have declared that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) institutional review board confirmed no formal ethical approval is required under current policies. This study does not require individual patient consent, in accordance with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies of CCF.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2024.

REFERENCES

1. Regan JP, Inabnet WB, Gagner M, Pomp A. Early experience with two-stage laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as an alternative in the super-super obese patient. Obes Surg 2003;13:861-4.

2. Clapp B, Ponce J, DeMaria E, et al. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery 2020 estimate of metabolic and bariatric procedures performed in the United States. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2022;18:1134-40.

3. Benaiges D, Más-Lorenzo A, Goday A, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: more than a restrictive bariatric surgery procedure? World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:11804-14.

4. Brethauer SA, Hammel JP, Schauer PR. Systematic review of sleeve gastrectomy as staging and primary bariatric procedure. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2009;5:469-75.

5. Alvarenga ES, Lo Menzo E, Szomstein S, Rosenthal RJ. Safety and efficacy of 1020 consecutive laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies performed as a primary treatment modality for morbid obesity. A single-center experience from the metabolic and bariatric surgical accreditation quality and improvement program. Surg Endosc 2016;30:2673-8.

6. Eisendrath P, Deviere J. Major complications of bariatric surgery: endoscopy as first-line treatment. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;12:701-10.

7. Singh RR, Nussbaum JS, Kumta NA. Endoscopic management of perforations, leaks and fistulas. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;3:85.

8. McCarty TR, Kumar N. Revision bariatric procedures and management of complications from bariatric surgery. Dig Dis Sci 2022;67:1688-701.

9. Consten EC, Gagner M, Pomp A, Inabnet WB. Decreased bleeding after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with or without duodenal switch for morbid obesity using a stapled buttressed absorbable polymer membrane. Obes Surg 2004;14:1360-6.

10. D’Ugo S, Gentileschi P, Benavoli D, et al. Comparative use of different techniques for leak and bleeding prevention during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a multicenter study. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2014;10:450-4.

11. Park JY. Diagnosis and management of postoperative complications after sleeve gastrectomy. J Metab Bariatr Surg 2022;11:1-12.

12. Gagner M, Deitel M, Erickson AL, Crosby RD. Survey on laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) at the Fourth International Consensus Summit on Sleeve Gastrectomy. Obes Surg 2013;23:2013-7.

13. De Angelis F, Abdelgawad M, Rizzello M, Mattia C, Silecchia G. Perioperative hemorrhagic complications after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: four-year experience of a bariatric center of excellence. Surg Endosc 2017;31:3547-51.

14. Currò G, Piscitelli G, Lazzara C, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity: role of intraluminal and intraperitoneal postoperative drainage. G Chir 2017;38:181-4.

15. Mocanu V, Dang J, Ladak F, Switzer N, Birch DW, Karmali S. Predictors and outcomes of bleed after sleeve gastrectomy: an analysis of the MBSAQIP data registry. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019;15:1675-81.

16. Çalıkoğlu İ, Hamzaoğlu H, Yerdel MA. Combined use of endoscopy to guide laparoscopic management of intraluminal bleeding from the staple-line after sleeve gastrectomy: a video case report. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2020;16:1156-7.

17. Naeem Z, Volteas P, Khomutova A, et al. Timing and management of bleeding after bariatric surgery. Surg Endosc 2023;37:7437-43.

18. Gagner M, Kemmeter P. Comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy leak rates in five staple-line reinforcement options: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 2020;34:396-407.

19. Gagner M, Buchwald JN. Comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy leak rates in four staple-line reinforcement options: a systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2014;10:713-23.

20. Benedix F, Poranzke O, Adolf D, et al; Obesity Surgery Working Group Competence Network Obesity. Staple line leak after primary sleeve gastrectomy-risk factors and mid-term results: do patients still benefit from the weight loss procedure? Obes Surg 2017;27:1780-8.

21. Baker RS, Foote J, Kemmeter P, Brady R, Vroegop T, Serveld M. The science of stapling and leaks. Obes Surg 2004;14:1290-8.

22. Aurora AR, Khaitan L, Saber AA. Sleeve gastrectomy and the risk of leak: a systematic analysis of 4,888 patients. Surg Endosc 2012;26:1509-15.

23. Rosenthal RJ, Diaz AA, Arvidsson D, et al; International Sleeve Gastrectomy Expert Panel. International Sleeve Gastrectomy Expert Panel Consensus Statement: best practice guidelines based on experience of >12,000 cases. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2012;8:8-19.

24. Johari Y, Catchlove W, Tse M, et al. A 4-tier protocolized radiological classification system for leaks following sleeve gastrectomy. Ann Surg 2022;275:e401-9.

25. Larsen M, Kozarek R. Therapeutic endoscopy for the treatment of post-bariatric surgery complications. World J Gastroenterol 2022;28:199-215.

26. Gjeorgjievski M, Imam Z, Cappell MS, Jamil LH, Kahaleh M. A comprehensive review of endoscopic management of sleeve gastrectomy leaks. J Clin Gastroenterol 2021;55:551-76.

27. Christophorou D, Valats JC, Funakoshi N, et al. Endoscopic treatment of fistula after sleeve gastrectomy: results of a multicenter retrospective study. Endoscopy 2015;47:988-96.

28. Serrot FJ, Lin E. Comment on: outcomes of endoscopic treatment of leaks and fistulae following sleeve gastrectomy: results from a large multicenter U.S. cohort. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019;15:e25-7.

29. Kim J, Azagury D, Eisenberg D, DeMaria E, Campos GM; American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Clinical Issues Committee. ASMBS position statement on prevention, detection, and treatment of gastrointestinal leak after gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy, including the roles of imaging, surgical exploration, and nonoperative management. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2015;11:739-48.

30. Lorenzo D, Guilbaud T, Gonzalez JM, et al. Endoscopic treatment of fistulas after sleeve gastrectomy: a comparison of internal drainage versus closure. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87:429-37.

31. Southwell T, Lim TH, Ogra R. Endoscopic therapy for treatment of staple line leaks post-laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG): experience from a large bariatric surgery centre in New Zealand. Obes Surg 2016;26:1155-62.

32. Jaruvongvanich V, Matar R, Storm AC, et al. Endoscopic management of refractory leaks and fistulas after bariatric surgery with long-term follow-up. Surg Endosc 2021;35:2715-23.

33. Eisendrath P, Cremer M, Himpens J, Cadière GB, Le Moine O, Devière J. Endotherapy including temporary stenting of fistulas of the upper gastrointestinal tract after laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Endoscopy 2007;39:625-30.

34. Smith ZL, Park KH, Llano EM, et al. Outcomes of endoscopic treatment of leaks and fistulae after sleeve gastrectomy: results from a large multicenter U.S. cohort. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019;15:850-5.

35. Nedelcu M, Manos T, Cotirlet A, Noel P, Gagner M. Outcome of leaks after sleeve gastrectomy based on a new algorithm adressing leak size and gastric stenosis. Obes Surg 2015;25:559-63.

36. Garofalo F, Noreau-Nguyen M, Denis R, Atlas H, Garneau P, Pescarus R. Evolution of endoscopic treatment of sleeve gastrectomy leaks: from partially covered to long, fully covered stents. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2017;13:925-32.

37. Billmann F, Pfeiffer A, Sauer P, et al. Endoscopic stent placement can successfully treat gastric leak following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy if and only if an esophagoduodenal megastent is used. Obes Surg 2022;32:64-73.

38. Puli SR, Spofford IS, Thompson CC. Use of self-expandable stents in the treatment of bariatric surgery leaks: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:287-93.

39. El Mourad H, Himpens J, Verhofstadt J. Stent treatment for fistula after obesity surgery: results in 47 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc 2013;27:808-16.

40. Murino A, Arvanitakis M, Le Moine O, Blero D, Devière J, Eisendrath P. Effectiveness of endoscopic management using self-expandable metal stents in a large cohort of patients with post-bariatric leaks. Obes Surg 2015;25:1569-76.

41. Martin Del Campo SE, Mikami DJ, Needleman BJ, Noria SF. Endoscopic stent placement for treatment of sleeve gastrectomy leak: a single institution experience with fully covered stents. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2018;14:453-61.

42. Ngamruengphong S, Sharaiha R, Sethi A, et al. Fully-covered metal stents with endoscopic suturing vs. partially-covered metal stents for benign upper gastrointestinal diseases: a comparative study. Endosc Int Open 2018;6:E217-23.

43. Seven G, Irani S, Ross AS, et al. Partially versus fully covered self-expanding metal stents for benign and malignant esophageal conditions: a single center experience. Surg Endosc 2013;27:2185-92.

44. van Heel NC, Haringsma J, Wijnhoven BP, Kuipers EJ. Endoscopic removal of self-expandable metal stents from the esophagus (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:44-50.

45. Dua KS, Latif SU, Yang JF, Fang TC, Khan A, Oh Y. Efficacy and safety of a new fully covered self-expandable non-foreshortening metal esophageal stent. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;80:577-85.

46. van Halsema EE, Wong Kee Song LM, Baron TH, et al. Safety of endoscopic removal of self-expandable stents after treatment of benign esophageal diseases. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77:18-28.

47. Ngamruengphong S, Sharaiha RZ, Sethi A, et al. Endoscopic suturing for the prevention of stent migration in benign upper gastrointestinal conditions: a comparative multicenter study. Endoscopy 2016;48:802-8.

48. Law R, Prabhu A, Fujii-Lau L, Shannon C, Singh S. Stent migration following endoscopic suture fixation of esophageal self-expandable metal stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2018;32:675-81.

49. Manes G, Corsi F, Pallotta S, Massari A, Foschi D, Trabucchi E. Fixation of a covered self-expandable metal stent by means of a polypectomy snare: an easy method to prevent stent migration. Dig Liver Dis 2008;40:791-3.

50. Vanbiervliet G, Filippi J, Karimdjee BS, et al. The role of clips in preventing migration of fully covered metallic esophageal stents: a pilot comparative study. Surg Endosc 2012;26:53-9.

51. Mudumbi S, Velazquez-Aviña J, Neumann H, Kyanam Kabir Baig KR, Mönkemüller K. Anchoring of self-expanding metal stents using the over-the-scope clip, and a technique for subsequent removal. Endoscopy 2014;46:1106-9.

52. Basha J, Appasani S, Sinha SK, et al. Mega stents: a new option for management of leaks following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Endoscopy 2014;46 Suppl 1 UCTN:E49-50.

53. Souto-Rodríguez R, Alvarez-Sánchez MV. Endoluminal solutions to bariatric surgery complications: a review with a focus on technical aspects and results. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2017;9:105-26.

54. Wadhwa RP, Kozarek RA, France RE, et al. Use of self-expandable metallic stents in benign GI diseases. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:207-12.

55. van Boeckel PG, Sijbring A, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD. Systematic review: temporary stent placement for benign rupture or anastomotic leak of the oesophagus. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;33:1292-301.

56. Hirdes MM, Siersema PD, Houben MH, Weusten BL, Vleggaar FP. Stent-in-stent technique for removal of embedded esophageal self-expanding metal stents. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:286-93.

57. Rodella L, Laterza E, De Manzoni G, et al. Endoscopic clipping of anastomotic leakages in esophagogastric surgery. Endoscopy 1998;30:453-6.

58. Joo MK. Endoscopic approach for major complications of bariatric surgery. Clin Endosc 2017;50:31-41.

59. Keren D, Eyal O, Sroka G, et al. Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system for sleeve gastrectomy leaks. Obes Surg 2015;25:1358-63.

60. Surace M, Mercky P, Demarquay JF, et al. Endoscopic management of GI fistulae with the over-the-scope clip system (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:1416-9.

61. Kumbhari V, Abu Dayyeh BK. Keeping the fistula open: paradigm shift in the management of leaks after bariatric surgery? Endoscopy 2016;48:789-91.

62. Casella G, Soricelli E, Rizzello M, et al. Nonsurgical treatment of staple line leaks after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg 2009;19:821-6.

63. Rogalski P, Swidnicka-Siergiejko A, Wasielica-Berger J, et al. Endoscopic management of leaks and fistulas after bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2021;35:1067-87.

64. Papavramidis TS, Kotzampassi K, Kotidis E, Eleftheriadis EE, Papavramidis ST. Endoscopic fibrin sealing of gastrocutaneous fistulas after sleeve gastrectomy and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;23:1802-5.

65. Assalia A, Ilivitzki A, Ofer A, et al. Management of gastric fistula complicating laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with biological glue in a combined percutaneous and endoscopic approach. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2018;14:1093-8.

66. Felsher J, Farres H, Chand B, Farver C, Ponsky J. Mucosal apposition in endoscopic suturing. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:867-70.

67. Sharaiha RZ, Kumta NA, DeFilippis EM, et al. A large multicenter experience with endoscopic suturing for management of gastrointestinal defects and stent anchorage in 122 patients: a retrospective review. J Clin Gastroenterol 2016;50:388-92.

68. Kumta NA, Boumitri C, Kahaleh M. New devices and techniques for handling adverse events: claw, suture, or cover? Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2015;25:159-68.

69. Negm S, Mousa B, Shafiq A, et al. Endoscopic management of refractory leak and gastro-cutaneous fistula after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2023;37:2173-81.

70. Cai JX, Khashab MA, Okolo PI 3rd, Kalloo AN, Kumbhari V. Full-thickness endoscopic suturing of staple-line leaks following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Endoscopy 2014;46 Suppl 1 UCTN:E623-4.

71. Chon SH, Toex U, Plum PS, et al. Efficacy and feasibility of OverStitch suturing of leaks in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Surg Endosc 2020;34:3861-9.

72. Granata A, Amata M, Ligresti D, et al. Endoscopic management of post-surgical GI wall defects with the overstitch endosuturing system: a single-center experience. Surg Endosc 2020;34:3805-17.

73. Maselli R, Palma R, Traina M, et al. Endoscopic suturing for GI applications: initial results from a prospective multicenter European registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;96:780-6.

74. Mukewar S, Kumar N, Catalano M, et al. Safety and efficacy of fistula closure by endoscopic suturing: a multi-center study. Endoscopy 2016;48:1023-8.

75. de Moura DTH, Sachdev AH, Thompson CC. Endoscopic full-thickness defects and closure techniques. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2018;16:386-405.

76. Bouchard S, Eisendrath P, Toussaint E, et al. Trans-fistulary endoscopic drainage for post-bariatric abdominal collections communicating with the upper gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopy 2016;48:809-16.

77. Donatelli G, Dumont JL, Cereatti F, et al. Treatment of leaks following sleeve gastrectomy by endoscopic internal drainage (EID). Obes Surg 2015;25:1293-301.

78. Hughes D, Hughes I, Khanna A. Management of staple line leaks following sleeve gastrectomy - a systematic review. Obes Surg 2019;29:2759-72.

79. Gonzalez JM, Lorenzo D, Guilbaud T, Bège T, Barthet M. Internal endoscopic drainage as first line or second line treatment in case of postsleeve gastrectomy fistulas. Endosc Int Open 2018;6:E745-50.

80. Giuliani A, Romano L, Marchese M, et al. Gastric leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: management with endoscopic double pigtail drainage. a systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019;15:1414-9.

81. Donatelli G, Ferretti S, Vergeau BM, et al. Endoscopic internal drainage with enteral nutrition (EDEN) for treatment of leaks following sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg 2014;24:1400-7.

82. Donatelli G, Dumont JL, Cereatti F, et al. Endoscopic internal drainage as first-line treatment for fistula following gastrointestinal surgery: a case series. Endosc Int Open 2016;4:E647-51.

83. Donatelli G, Spota A, Cereatti F, et al. Endoscopic internal drainage for the management of leak, fistula, and collection after sleeve gastrectomy: our experience in 617 consecutive patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2021;17:1432-9.

84. Siddique I, Alazmi W, Al-Sabah SK. Endoscopic internal drainage by double pigtail stents in the management of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy leaks. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2020;16:831-8.

85. Chahine E, D’Alessandro A, Elhajjam M, et al. Massive gastrointestinal bleeding due to splenic artery erosion by a pigtail drain in a post sleeve gastrectomy leak: a case report. Obes Surg 2019;29:1653-6.

86. Marchese M, Romano L, Giuliani A, et al. A case of intrasplenic displacement of an endoscopic double-pigtail stent as a treatment for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy leak. Int J Surg Case Rep 2018;53:367-9.

87. Donatelli G, Airinei G, Poupardin E, et al. Double-pigtail stent migration invading the spleen: rare potentially fatal complication of endoscopic internal drainage for sleeve gastrectomy leak. Endoscopy 2016;48 Suppl 1 UCTN:E74-5.

88. Genser L, Pattou F, Caiazzo R. Splenic abscess with portal venous gas caused by intrasplenic migration of an endoscopic double pigtail drain as a treatment of post-sleeve gastrectomy fistula. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2016;12:e1-3.

89. Schmidt F, Mennigen R, Vowinkel T, et al. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) - a new concept for complication management in bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 2017;27:2499-505.

90. Wichmann D, Scheble V, Fusco S, et al. Role of rendezvous-procedure in the treatment of complications after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. J Clin Med 2021;10:5670.

91. Kuehn F, Loske G, Schiffmann L, Gock M, Klar E. Endoscopic vacuum therapy for various defects of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Surg Endosc 2017;31:3449-58.

92. Archid R, Wichmann D, Klingert W, et al. Endoscopic vacuum therapy for staple line leaks after sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg 2020;30:1310-5.

93. Leeds SG, Burdick JS. Management of gastric leaks after sleeve gastrectomy with endoluminal vacuum (E-Vac) therapy. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2016;12:1278-85.

94. Brangewitz M, Voigtländer T, Helfritz FA, et al. Endoscopic closure of esophageal intrathoracic leaks: stent versus endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure, a retrospective analysis. Endoscopy 2013;45:433-8.

95. Hwang JJ, Jeong YS, Park YS, et al. Comparison of endoscopic vacuum therapy and endoscopic stent implantation with self-expandable metal stent in treating postsurgical gastroesophageal leakage. Medicine 2016;95:e3416.

96. Schniewind B, Schafmayer C, Voehrs G, et al. Endoscopic endoluminal vacuum therapy is superior to other regimens in managing anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy: a comparative retrospective study. Surg Endosc 2013;27:3883-90.

97. Mennigen R, Harting C, Lindner K, et al. Comparison of endoscopic vacuum therapy versus stent for anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2015;19:1229-35.

98. Mandarino FV, Barchi A, D’Amico F, et al. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) versus self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) for anastomotic leaks after upper gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Life 2023;13:287.

99. Jung CFM, Hallit R, Müller-Dornieden A, et al. Endoscopic internal drainage and low negative-pressure endoscopic vacuum therapy for anastomotic leaks after oncologic upper gastrointestinal surgery. Endoscopy 2022;54:71-4.

100. Diaz R, Welsh LK, Perez JE, et al. Endoscopic septotomy as a treatment for leaks after sleeve gastrectomy: meeting presentations: Digestive Disease Week 2019. Endosc Int Open 2020;8:E70-5.

101. Baretta G, Campos J, Correia S, et al. Bariatric postoperative fistula: a life-saving endoscopic procedure. Surg Endosc 2015;29:1714-20.

102. Manos T, Nedelcu M, Nedelcu A, et al. Leak after sleeve gastrectomy: updated algorithm of treatment. Obes Surg 2021;31:4861-7.

103. Mahadev S, Kumbhari V, Campos JM, et al. Endoscopic septotomy: an effective approach for internal drainage of sleeve gastrectomy-associated collections. Endoscopy 2017;49:504-8.

104. Angrisani L, Hasani A, Santonicola A, Vitiello A, Iovino P, Galasso G. Endoscopic septotomy for the treatment of sleeve gastrectomy fistula: timing and indications. Obes Surg 2018;28:846-7.

105. Shnell M, Gluck N, Abu-Abeid S, Santo E, Fishman S. Use of endoscopic septotomy for the treatment of late staple-line leaks after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Endoscopy 2017;49:59-63.

106. Fazi J, Nasr J, Szoka N. Endoscopic septotomy and dilation of chronic sleeve gastrectomy leak. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019;15:2002.

107. de Lima JH. Endoscopic treatment of post vertical gastrectomy fistula: septotomy associated with air expansion of incisura angularis. Arq Bras Cir Dig 2014;27 Suppl 1:80-1.

108. Ortega CB, Guerron AD, Portenier D. Endoscopic abscess septotomy: a less invasive approach for the treatment of sleeve gastrectomy leaks. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2018;28:859-63.

109. Baptista A, Hourneaux De Moura DT, Jirapinyo P, et al. Efficacy of the cardiac septal occluder in the treatment of post-bariatric surgery leaks and fistulas. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89:671-9.e1.

110. De Moura DTH, Baptista A, Jirapinyo P, De Moura EGH, Thompson C. Role of cardiac septal occluders in the treatment of gastrointestinal fistulas: a systematic review. Clin Endosc 2020;53:37-48.

111. Kumar N, Thompson CC. Endoscopic therapy for postoperative leaks and fistulae. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2013;23:123-36.

112. Maluf-Filho F, Hondo F, Halwan B, de Lima MS, Giordano-Nappi JH, Sakai P. Endoscopic treatment of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass-related gastrocutaneous fistulas using a novel biomaterial. Surg Endosc 2009;23:1541-5.

113. Kumaira Fonseca M, Coelho NHV, Manica JLL, Ramblo RR, Spier IE, Seabra AP. Endoscopic management of a chronic gastrocutaneous fistula after bariatric revisional surgery using a novel cardiac septal occluder. GE Port J Gastroenterol 2023;30:52-6.

114. de Moura DTH, Boghossian MB, Hirsch BS, McCarty TR, Baptista AJ, de Moura EGH. Long-term endoscopic follow-up after closure of a post-bariatric surgery fistula with a cardiac septal defect occluder. Endoscopy 2022;54:E127-8.

115. Deslauriers V, Beauchamp A, Garofalo F, et al. Endoscopic management of post-laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy stenosis. Surg Endosc 2018;32:601-9.

116. Ogra R, Kini GP. Evolving endoscopic management options for symptomatic stenosis post-laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity: experience at a large bariatric surgery unit in New Zealand. Obes Surg 2015;25:242-8.

117. Abd Ellatif ME, Abbas A, El Nakeeb A, et al. Management options for twisted gastric tube after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg 2017;27:2404-9.

118. Donatelli G, Dumont JL, Pourcher G, et al. Pneumatic dilation for functional helix stenosis after sleeve gastrectomy: long-term follow-up (with videos). Surg Obes Relat Dis 2017;13:943-50.

119. Schulman AR, Thompson CC. Complications of bariatric surgery: what you can expect to see in your GI practice. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:1640-55.

120. Siqueira LT, Santa-Cruz F, Pontual JP, et al. Gastric twist after sleeve gastrectomy: a proposal for endoscopic classification. Arq Bras Cir Dig 2022;35:e1665.

121. Manos T, Nedelcu M, Cotirlet A, Eddbali I, Gagner M, Noel P. How to treat stenosis after sleeve gastrectomy? Surg Obes Relat Dis 2017;13:150-4.

122. Agnihotri A, Barola S, Hill C, et al. An algorithmic approach to the management of gastric stenosis following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg 2017;27:2628-36.

123. Hamed H, Elghadban H, Ezzat H, Attia M, Sanad A, El Sorogy M. Gastric stenosis after sleeve gastrectomy: an algorithm for management. Obes Surg 2020;30:4785-93.

124. Chang SH, Popov VB, Thompson CC. Endoscopic balloon dilation for treatment of sleeve gastrectomy stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:989-1002.e4.

125. Shnell M, Fishman S, Eldar S, Goitein D, Santo E. Balloon dilatation for symptomatic gastric sleeve stricture. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79:521-4.

126. Parikh A, Alley JB, Peterson RM, et al. Management options for symptomatic stenosis after laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy in the morbidly obese. Surg Endosc 2012;26:738-46.

127. Brunaldi VO, Galvao Neto M, Zundel N, Abu Dayyeh BK. Isolated sleeve gastrectomy stricture: a systematic review on reporting, workup, and treatment. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2020;16:955-66.

128. Rebibo L, Hakim S, Dhahri A, Yzet T, Delcenserie R, Regimbeau JM. Gastric stenosis after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: diagnosis and management. Obes Surg 2016;26:995-1001.

129. Costa MN, Capela T, Seves I, Ribeiro R, Rio-Tinto R. Endoscopic treatment of early gastric obstruction after sleeve gastrectomy: report of two cases. GE Port J Gastroenterol 2016;23:46-9.

130. Guetta O, Ovnat A, Shaked G, Czeiger D, Sebbag G. Analysis of morbidity data of 308 cases of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy - the Soroka experience. Obes Surg 2015;25:2100-5.

131. De Moura EGH, de Moura DTH, Sakai CM, Sagae V, Neto ACM, Thompson CC. Endoscopic tunneled stricturotomy with full-thickness dissection in the management of a sleeve gastrectomy stenosis. Obes Surg 2019;29:2711-2.

132. de Moura DTH, Jirapinyo P, Aihara H, Thompson CC. Endoscopic tunneled stricturotomy in the treatment of stenosis after sleeve gastrectomy. VideoGIE 2019;4:68-71.

133. Zundel N, Hernandez JD, Galvao Neto M, Campos J. Strictures after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2010;20:154-8.

134. Veziant J, Benhalima S, Piessen G, Slim K. Obesity, sleeve gastrectomy and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. J Visc Surg 2023;160:S47-54.

135. Stenard F, Iannelli A. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and gastroesophageal reflux. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:10348-57.

136. Salminen P, Grönroos S, Helmiö M, et al. Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss, comorbidities, and reflux at 10 years in adult patients with obesity: the SLEEVEPASS randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2022;157:656-66.

137. Peterli R, Wölnerhanssen BK, Peters T, et al. Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss in patients with morbid obesity: the SM-BOSS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018;319:255-65.

138. Campos GM, Mazzini GS, Altieri MS, Docimo S Jr, DeMaria EJ, Rogers AM; Clinical Issues Committee of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. ASMBS position statement on the rationale for performance of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy before and after metabolic and bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2021;17:837-47.

139. Silecchia G, Iossa A. GERD and Barrett’s esophagus as indications for revisional surgery after sleeve gastrectomy: experience of a bariatric center of excellence IFSO-EC and narrative review. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab 2021;16:229-35.

140. Negro E, Martínez Cortijo S. Gastroesophageal reflux management after vertical sleeve gastrectomy. Cir Esp 2023;101 Suppl 4:S52-7.

141. Franciosa M, Triadafilopoulos G, Mashimo H. Stretta radiofrequency treatment for GERD: a safe and effective modality. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2013;2013:783815.

142. Khidir N, Angrisani L, Al-Qahtani J, Abayazeed S, Bashah M. Initial experience of endoscopic radiofrequency waves delivery to the lower esophageal sphincter (Stretta procedure) on symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease post-sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg 2018;28:3125-30.

143. Debourdeau A, Vitton V, Monino L, Barthet M, Gonzalez JM. Antireflux mucosectomy band (ARM-b) in treatment of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease after bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 2020;30:4654-8.

144. Saber AA, Shoar S, Khoursheed M. Intra-thoracic sleeve migration (ITSM): an underreported phenomenon after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg 2017;27:1917-23.

145. Amor IB, Debs T, Kassir R, Anty R, Amor VB, Gugenheim J. De novo hiatal hernia of the gastric tube after sleeve gastrectomy. Int J Surg Case Rep 2015;15:78-80.

146. Sabry K, Elmaleh HM, El-Swaify ST, et al. Surgical management algorithm for intrathoracic sleeve migration: a retrospective series and literature review. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2022;32:1078-91.

147. Saba J, Bravo M, Rivas E, Fernández R, Pérez-Castilla A, Zajjur J. Incidence of de novo hiatal hernia after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg 2020;30:3730-4.

148. Lainas P, Triantafyllou E, Ben Amor V, et al. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y fistulojejunostomy as a salvage procedure in patients with chronic gastric leak after sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2023;19:585-92.

149. Landreneau JP, Strong AT, Rodriguez JH, et al. Conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg 2018;28:3843-50.

150. Deffain A, Alfaris H, Hajjar R, et al. Long-term follow-up of a cohort with post sleeve gastrectomy leaks: results of endoscopic treatment and salvage surgery. Surg Endosc 2023;37:9358-65.

Cite This Article

Review
Open Access
Endoscopic management of complications after sleeve gastrectomy: a narrative review
Sol Lee, ... Matthew KrohMatthew Kroh

How to Cite

Lee, S.; Dang J.; Chaivanijchaya K.; Farah A.; Kroh M. Endoscopic management of complications after sleeve gastrectomy: a narrative review. Mini-invasive. Surg. 2024, 8, 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2024.30

Download Citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click on download.

Export Citation File:

Type of Import

Tips on Downloading Citation

This feature enables you to download the bibliographic information (also called citation data, header data, or metadata) for the articles on our site.

Citation Manager File Format

Use the radio buttons to choose how to format the bibliographic data you're harvesting. Several citation manager formats are available, including EndNote and BibTex.

Type of Import

If you have citation management software installed on your computer your Web browser should be able to import metadata directly into your reference database.

Direct Import: When the Direct Import option is selected (the default state), a dialogue box will give you the option to Save or Open the downloaded citation data. Choosing Open will either launch your citation manager or give you a choice of applications with which to use the metadata. The Save option saves the file locally for later use.

Indirect Import: When the Indirect Import option is selected, the metadata is displayed and may be copied and pasted as needed.

About This Article

Special Issue

© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Data & Comments

Data

Views
137
Downloads
47
Citations
0
Comments
0
2

Comments

Comments must be written in English. Spam, offensive content, impersonation, and private information will not be permitted. If any comment is reported and identified as inappropriate content by OAE staff, the comment will be removed without notice. If you have any queries or need any help, please contact us at support@oaepublish.com.

0
Download PDF
Share This Article
Scan the QR code for reading!
See Updates
Contents
Figures
Related
Mini-invasive Surgery
ISSN 2574-1225 (Online)
Follow Us

Portico

All published articles are preserved here permanently:

https://www.portico.org/publishers/oae/

Portico

All published articles are preserved here permanently:

https://www.portico.org/publishers/oae/