ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Is it the technique or wound protection that is key to reducing wound infections in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Feasibility and safety of laparoscopic small bowel resections with intracorporal anastomosis in emergency settings - a retrospective single centre study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAn unusually high surgical site infection (SSI) rate after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) was noted on routine outcomes review. Surgeon A, who had a rate of 8.9%, utilized the transoral technique (passage down esophagus into gastric pouch) for anvil insertion for the circular-stapled gastrojejunostomy. By comparison, SSI rate was 0% for Surgeon B, who inserted anvil transabdominally (direct passage into stomach via gastrotomy) and used wound protection (wound protector and plastic drape over stapler). We sought to determine if it was the technique for anvil insertion (transoral or transabdominal) or use of wound protection that could help reduce SSIs.
methodsIn mid-2017, Surgeon A added wound protection (wound protector and plastic drape over stapler) to the transoral technique to minimize oral flora wound contamination. Surgeon B made no changes. In this study, wound-related outcomes are examined, comparing patients who underwent surgery before (Group 1) versus after (Group 2) this intervention. Statistical analysis performed utilizing t tests and Chi square analysis; p < 0.05 considered significant.
resultsThree hundred and thirty-three patients underwent RYGB. Group 1 consisted of 182 patients over 17 months; 151 patients over 13 months were in Group 2. Groups were similar in age, BMI, gender, and prevalence of diabetes. There was a decrease in SSIs between Group 1 and Group 2 (5 vs. 0, p = 0.04). 11 wound complications occurred in Group 1 (5 SSIs, 4 seromas and 2 hematomas); whereas 2 wound complications occurred in Group 2 (1 seroma and 1 hematoma); decrease from 6 to 1.3%, p = 0.03.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that changing technique can lead to best outcomes. There was a dramatic reduction of wound complications and complete elimination of SSIs with a change in operative technique. The higher risk of SSI with the transoral anvil insertion when preforming a circular-stapled anastomosis can be mitigated with use of wound protection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31359198What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.