Comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy leak rates in five staple-line reinforcement options: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Staple-line leaks following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) remain a concerning complication. Staple-line buttressing is largely adopted as an acceptable reinforcement but data regarding leaks have been equivocal. This study compared staple-line leaks in five reinforcement options during LSG: no reinforcement (NO-SLR), oversewing (suture), nonabsorbable bovine pericardial strips (BPS), tissue sealant or fibrin glue (Seal), or absorbable polymer membrane (APM). METHODS: This systematic review study of articles published between 2012 and 2016 regarding LSG leak rates aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Variables of interest included leak rates, bleeding, and complications in addition to surgical and population parameters. An independent Fisher's exact test was used to compare the number of patients with and without leaks for the different reinforcement options. RESULTS: Of the 1633 articles identified, 148 met inclusion criteria and represented 40,653 patients. Differences in age (older in APM; p = 0.001), starting body mass index (lower in Suture; p = 0.008), and distance from pylorus (closer in BPS; p = 0.04) were observed between groups, but mean bougie size was equivalent. The overall leak rate of 1.5% (607 leaks) ranged from 0.7% for APM (significantly lower than all groups; p ≤ 0.007 for next lowest leak rate) to 2.7% (BPS). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of staple-line leaks following LSG demonstrated a significantly lower rate using APM staple-line reinforcement as compared to oversewing, use of sealants, BPS reinforcement, or no reinforcement. Variation in surgical technique may also contribute to leak rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".