Missing Jejunal Perforation During Small Bowel Measurement in Patient Operated by Laparoscopic One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass
Manuel Ferrer-Márquez,Vanesa Maturana Ibáñez,Francisco Rubio Gil,María José Solvas Salmerón,Maria José Torrente Sánchez,Antonio Martínez Amo-Gámez,Manuel Ferrer-Ayza
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-021-05365-2
Abstract:Background: Obesity surgery is justified as it produces sustained weight loss, increases life expectancy, and reduces the complications of obesity. For this reason, increasing numbers of patients are undergoing this surgery [1]. Complications following surgical treatment of severe obesity vary based upon the procedure performed and, although it is currently below 7% in more experienced centers, it may increase in more complex surgeries (such as revision surgery) and can be as high as 40% [2, 3]. Patients with early postoperative complications may be managed in specialist centers by the bariatric surgeon during the hospital stay [4]. Missing bowel injury may occur primarily during insertion of a Veress needle and trocar, use of electrosurgery and laser beams, suturing, and adhesiolysis [5]. Less frequently, the bowel perforation is due to the measurement of the loop and goes unnoticed. Perforation of the intestines due to any reason is a severe condition that can clinically present with free intraabdominal air, purulent or even fecal peritonitis, and abdominal compartment syndrome [6]. High clinical suspicion is crucial for early diagnosis. Early recognition of bowel injury and early intervention is crucial to reduce its morbidity and mortality [5]. Methods: We present a case of a 50-year-old male patient with a BMI of 36.1 kg/m2, hypertension, and dyslipidemia who was proposed for bariatric surgery. A laparoscopic one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) was performed with no intraoperative incidents. Few hours after the surgery, the patient manifests intense abdominal pain and tachycardia (120 bpm) so we decided to order an abdominal CT scan that showed signs of jejunal perforation (pneumoperitoneum, oral contrast extravasation, and small air bubbles next to the jejunum wall). Results: Emergency laparoscopy was done and showed generalized peritonitis caused by a 4-mm perforation in the mesenteric border of the jejunum with everted mucosa that was located 150 cm from the loop of Treitz. We decided to place three infraumbilical trocars to help us with washing, viewing, and surgical repair. We performed a 2-0 barbed simple suture of the perforation and extensive washing of the entire cavity with 10 L of serum. We left three drains. The patient made an uneventful recovery and was discharged 72 h after surgery with an established oral diet. Conclusions: Missing intestinal perforation is an uncommon injury during bariatric surgery, but its early diagnosis is important to avoid endangering the patient's life. Simple postoperative tachycardia in obese patients should be taken seriously as it is a warning signal. Laparoscopic reoperation in these early diagnosed cases is safe and effective, since it allows visualization and washing of the entire cavity. Bowel injuries, which may occur as a result of the insertion of an insufflation needle or trocar, are a rare complication of laparoscopy. In the case we present, the perforation occurred during the small bowel measurement so we insist on the extreme caution that surgeons must take during every detail of the surgical technique. The use of atraumatic forceps, handling of the bowel strictly at the antimesenteric side, and the infusion of sufficient methylene blue in the anastomosis testing are gestures that can help reduce the risk.