IJGII Inernational Journal of Gastrointestinal Intervention

pISSN 2636-0004 eISSN 2636-0012
ESCI
scopus

Article

Review Article

Int J Gastrointest Interv 2022; 11(4): 174-178

Published online October 31, 2022 https://doi.org/10.18528/ijgii220046

Copyright © International Journal of Gastrointestinal Intervention.

Endoscopic management of postoperative upper gastrointestinal leakage

Ji Yong Ahn*

Departments of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to:*Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea.
E-mail address: ji110@hanmail.net (J.Y. Ahn).

Received: August 11, 2022; Revised: September 15, 2022; Accepted: September 15, 2022

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/4.0) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Anastomotic leakage is a potentially life-threatening adverse event that can occur after gastrectomy or gastric bypass surgery, ranging in severity from minor anastomotic defects to fulminant cases. The management of anastomotic leakage varies according to the time of diagnosis and the severity of the leakage; therefore, some cases can be managed conservatively, while others require urgent exploration. Despite aggressive medical and/or surgical management, some patients develop sepsis with multiple organ failure, leading to death. Hence, the management of anastomotic leakage imposes a significant burden on hospital resources. Due to the poor success rate of conservative therapy, anastomotic leakage management is usually performed surgically, which is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Given these concerns, non-operative treatment by endoscopic management, which uses sealants, hemoclips, self-expandable metal stents, and vacuum-assisted sponge closure, may be a valid alternative modality. According to recent studies, the results of endoscopic management for postoperative leakage have improved due to developments in instruments. Therefore, endoscopic management can be considered as an appropriate treatment option for properly selected patients with postoperative leakage.

Keywords: Anastomotic leak, Endoscopy, Therapeutics

In Western countries, the surgical management of obesity has greatly expanded, and anastomotic leakage has been identified as an important prognostic indicator. Anastomotic leakage occurs in up to 9% of patients who undergo bariatric surgical procedures,1 and reoperation is associated with substantial morbidity and a mortality rate of up to 14.7%.24 In addition to doubling the risk of mortality, leakage results in a 6-fold increase in the length of the hospital stay due to wound infection, sepsis, respiratory failure, renal failure, thromboembolism, internal hernia, and small bowel obstruction.2,5

In Asian countries, the prevalence of gastric cancer remains high, and gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers of the digestive system.6 The prognosis of stomach cancer continues to improve due to advances in surgical techniques; however, intra-abdominal anastomotic leakage continues to be one of the most serious complications following gastrectomy and causes increased mortality. The incidence of anastomotic leakage after gastric cancer surgery is as high as 20%, and the associated mortality rate may reach 80%, depending on the site and the size of the leakage.7,8

The treatment options for postoperative leakage include conservative treatment with or without external drainage, endoscopic treatment with or without external drainage, and surgery. Although surgery has been the mainstay of therapy in patients with gastrointestinal leakage, fistula, and perforations, the most effective way to manage these complications remains a matter of debate. In patients with sepsis, surgical management is often required. However, a surgical intervention for postoperative leakage may be difficult, because surgical revision is associated with a high risk of mortality and morbidity.911 In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the endoscopic management of postoperative leakage with the technical and instrumental development of endoscopic procedures to avoid the safety concerns associated with traditional surgical interventions. Lee et al12 chronologically analyzed the clinical impacts of introducing endoscopic treatment. In a comparison of two groups—before and after the introduction of endoscopic treatment—there were differences in the length of the hospital stay (median, 32 days vs 27 days; P = 0.048) and the duration of antibiotic use (median, 28 days vs 20 days; P = 0.013). These results indicate that endoscopic management for appropriately selected cases can reduce the duration of hospital day and antibiotic administration in the treatment of anastomotic leakage. This article presents a review of the literature on treating leakage after gastrectomy or gastric bypass surgery, with a focus on endoscopic treatment.

Leakage is defined as a discontinuity of tissue apposition in the immediate postoperative period, which develops when the intraluminal pressure exceeds the tissue or suture line resistance.

Clinical suspicion is critical for an early diagnosis of leakage, especially after surgery. In the postoperative period, anastomotic dehiscence should always be considered whenever there is any deterioration of patients’ clinical condition, including the development of fever, respiratory failure, new changes on chest radiography, and multiorgan failure.13 The most common reported symptom of leakage is tachycardia, which is present in 72% to 92% of patients.4,14 Nevertheless, studies have also reported nausea and vomiting (81%), fever (62%), and leukocytosis (48%), and a high suspicion for leakage is necessary for patients with any of these symptoms. Objective signs include increased drain output, as well as C-reactive protein levels above 22.9 mg/dL 2 days after surgery (sensitivity, 1.00).15

The diagnosis can be established using a combination of radiological and endoscopic imaging. Upper gastrointestinal series with water-soluble contrast and computed tomography (CT) have limited sensitivity because of the body habitus, but show high positive predictive values.1619 An endoscopic diagnosis of gastrointestinal leakage requires a careful examination of the esophagus, stomach, small bowel, colon, gastric pouch, and anastomosis site.

To increase the diagnostic yield, an endoscopic examination under fluoroscopy by using a combination of maneuvers, including a bubble test (submerging the drain while performing endoscopic insufflation; with bubbles indicating the presence of leakage), and an injection of contrast with methylene blue into an abdominal drain while observing endoscopically and fluoroscopically can be used to find evidence of leakage.2 Repeated oral contrast examination, a CT scan, or an endoscopic examination is needed for patients with a high index of suspicion.

Many articles on endoscopic treatment have shown promising results. Lee et al20 reported that endoscopic treatment was feasible for anastomotic leakage after surgery for cancer, with 95% technical success and 100% clinical success rates. Among 20 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment, the endoscopic technique consisted of hemoclips alone in four cases, glue alone in two cases, clips and glue in 12 cases, and clips and a detachable snare in two cases. On average, 1.1 ± 0.3 attempts were required to seal the leakage. The amount of fibrin glue varied from 2 to 4 mL, and the mean amount used was 2.6 ± 0.84 mL. The number of hemoclips used per treatment ranged from 1 to 6 (mean, 3.4 ± 1.46). In a prospective study of the endoscopic management of anastomotic complications from bariatric surgery, Bège et al21 reported a 100% technical success rate using wound clips and glue to close the residual or initial opening, with a mean of 4.4 endoscopies per patient, and neither mortality nor severe morbidity occurred. In many other studies showing the feasibility of endoscopic treatment, leakages and fistulas could be closed with sealants, hemoclips, or stents.13,2225 Vacuum-assisted drainage has recently been investigated, showing good results.26 These techniques have been used in combination for the management of leakage and other types of fistulas.

Sealants

Fibrin sealant is a biodegradable compound with a long and varied history of surgical use. Anastomotic leakage can be treated successfully by endoscopic means using fibrin either alone or in combination with Vicryl mesh to seal the leakage. This technique, first described by Pross et al,27 serves as an alternative to surgery or conservative treatment. Truong et al28 adopted this technique, and they successfully treated seven of nine patients. Once the target mucosa has been excoriated, fibrin can be applied and a plug then forms. In some cases, multiple sessions may be needed for this method. A randomized trial by Hwang and Chen29 found that in 13 patients with persistent enterocutaneous fistulas after 2 to 4 weeks of conservative therapy, the closure time was 4 days in the patients using fibrin glue versus 13 days in the control group. A previous case series of 52 patients with gastrointestinal fistula showed that endoscopic therapy was successful in 55.7% (n = 29) and, among them, 36.5% (n = 19) were cured with fibrin glue as the sole endoscopic management.25 Lee et al30 reported three cases of gastrointestinal fistula successfully treated with solely endoscopic injection of a tissue adhesive (Histoacryl®) without specific complications. Curative treatment through a glue injection was more frequently performed in low-output fistulas than in high-output fistulas.

Hemoclips

Hemoclips are successfully used for the closure of perforations varying from a few millimeters to 2 cm, while in larger perforations, multiple clips during two or three separate sessions could be needed.22 The clip should be deployed perpendicular to the long axis of the defect, and in most cases, experience and technical effort are necessary. Both fresh perforations and chronic fistulas that have lasted for several weeks can be closed with clips.31,32 Fresh perforations can usually heal quickly with clip closure alone, whereas 2 to 3 weeks may be required for the successful closure of fistulas.33 Debridement or drainage of the infection before closing the defect is often needed because clips may tear through edematous tissue, causing closure to fail.23 The use of rotatable clips or a cap-fitted endoscope can be useful for closing defects in the esophagus, especially if an en-face approach to the defect is unsuccessful.34 Luminal distention and insufflation should be minimized before and after the procedure.

Stent placement allows leakage to be healed and often enables enteral nutrition, thereby potentially accelerating recovery and avoiding the need for parenteral nutrition.2 Both covered self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) and self-expanding plastic stents (SEPS) can be used according to the site and size of leakage. Stent placement is performed after guidewire insertion using a forward-viewing endoscope with or without fluoroscopic guidance. The inserted stents are usually left in place for 2 to 8 weeks, because longer indwelling periods can increase the difficulty of extraction. SEPS are more easily removed than SEMS, but the migration risk is higher. A large-diameter SEPS can be placed inside the SEMS to induce pressure necrosis of the ingrown tissue; the stents can then be removed together a few days later.35 After stent insertion, too early oral intake can induce bowel peristalsis, which can make the stent move; therefore, delayed oral intake is recommended to decrease the risk of stent migration. To reduce the migration of SEMS in anastomotic leakage, fully covered SEMS placement with a silk thread can be considered as an effective and safe treatment option.36

Vacuum-assisted sponge closure consists of an open-cell sponge attached to external vacuum suction via a tube.37 For this technique, polyurethane sponges are endoscopically inserted into the abscess cavity that is made by the leakage or into a large leakage, followed by the application of controlled continuous negative pressure. A transnasal tube is connected to the sponge for the application of an external vacuum.38 The sponge stimulates the formation of granulation tissue, while vacuum suction improves perfusion, removes secretions, and drains the infected fluid. Recent initial reports have shown good results for this endoscopy-based vacuum therapy in the treatment of rectal anastomotic leakage after resection of the rectum.39,40 Based on these results, this technique was applied in leakage from esophageal anastomoses.26,38,41 A sponge that is cut to a size smaller than the wound cavity is fixed to the tip of the tube with a suture and is pushed into the fistula using endoscopic forceps (Fig. 1). The feeding tube is then attached to continuous vacuum suction and the sponge is changed 2 or 3 times weekly.41 The use of endoscopy-based vacuum therapy has recently been expanded to post-gastrectomy anastomotic leakage, for which it showed better results than those of SEMS.42,43 A recent multicenter retrospective study demonstrated that the clinical success rate was 70.6%, and no deaths were caused by endoscopy-based vacuum therapy itself.44

Figure 1. Vacuum-assisted sponge closure. (A) Ivor Lewis operation with esophago-gastrostomy site. (B) An approximately 1.2-cm fistula opening was identified below the esophagogastrostomy site. (C) Vacuum-assisted sponge closure was applied. (D) The fistula opening was successfully cured after 8 days of vacuum-assisted sponge closure.

Endoscopic suturing techniques have been demonstrated to be effective in fistula closure; however, device limitations combined with procedural complexity and the need for specialized technical skills have limited their adoption.2 The StomaphyX suturing system (EndoGastric Solutions, Redmond, WA, USA) has been used to resolve gastric leakage.45 Fernandez-Esparrach et al46 examined sutured gastrogastric fistula repair using the EndoCinch suturing system. In their report, the initial success rate was 95% and the durable success rate was 35%.

Several reports have described gastric leakage closure using a cardiac septal occluder.4749 A cardiac septal occluder is a self-expandable double-umbrella–shaped polyester-covered nitinol wire mesh. A delivery catheter is inserted over a guidewire placed through the leakage, then the guidewire is removed and the deployment catheter (preloaded with the cardiac septal occluder) is inserted through the delivery catheter. The endoscopist can deploy a cardiac septal occluder under endoscopic and fluoroscopic visualization. However, this device has a high risk of migration due to the lack of epithelialization, so it should only be used in salvage therapy.48

The management of patients with postoperative leakage can be challenging. A novel algorithm is proposed to help understand the diagnosis and treatment of postoperative anastomotic leakages (Fig. 2). Surgical management can be associated with high morbidity and mortality; therefore, the initial management should focus on alternative methods, such as endoscopic procedures, to avoid reoperation. Endoscopic management for postoperative leakage can thus be considered a good treatment option for properly selected patients.

Figure 2. Proposed algorithm for the diagnosis and treatment of postoperative anastomotic leakage. SIRS, systemic inflammatory response syndrome; GI, gastrointestinal; CT, computed tomography.
  1. Jurowich C, Thalheimer A, Seyfried F, Fein M, Bender G, Germer CT, et al. Gastric leakage after sleeve gastrectomy-clinical presentation and therapeutic options. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2011;396:981-7.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Kumar N, Thompson CC. Endoscopic management of complications after gastrointestinal weight loss surgery. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:343-53.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Lee S, Carmody B, Wolfe L, Demaria E, Kellum JM, Sugerman H, et al. Effect of location and speed of diagnosis on anastomotic leak outcomes in 3828 gastric bypass cases. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:708-13.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Carucci LR, Turner MA, Conklin RC, DeMaria EJ, Kellum JM, Sugerman HJ. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery for morbid obesity: evaluation of postoperative extraluminal leaks with upper gastrointestinal series. Radiology. 2006;238:119-27.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Almahmeed T, Gonzalez R, Nelson LG, Haines K, Gallagher SF, Murr MM. Morbidity of anastomotic leaks in patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Arch Surg. 2007;142:954-7.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69-90. Erratum in: CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:134.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Kim KH, Kim MC, Jung GJ. Risk factors for duodenal stump leakage after gastrectomy for gastric cancer and management technique of stump leakage. Hepatogastroenterology. 2014;61:1446-53.
  8. Aurello P, Sirimarco D, Magistri P, Petrucciani N, Berardi G, Amato S, et al. Management of duodenal stump fistula after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: systematic review. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:7571-6.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  9. Karliczek A, Harlaar NJ, Zeebregts CJ, Wiggers T, Baas PC, van Dam GM. Surgeons lack predictive accuracy for anastomotic leakage in gastrointestinal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24:569-76.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Lang H, Piso P, Stukenborg C, Raab R, Jähne J. Management and results of proximal anastomotic leaks in a series of 1114 total gastrectomies for gastric carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2000;26:168-71.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Oh SJ, Choi WB, Song J, Hyung WJ, Choi SH, Noh SH. Complications requiring reoperation after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 17 years experience in a single institute. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:239-45.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Lee S, Ahn JY, Jung HY, Lee JH, Choi KS, Kim DH, et al. Clinical outcomes of postoperative upper gastrointestinal leakage according to treatment modality. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61:523-32.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Raju GS. Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal leaks. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2007;17:487-503, vi.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Gonzalez R, Sarr MG, Smith CD, Baghai M, Kendrick M, Szomstein S, et al. Diagnosis and contemporary management of anastomotic leaks after gastric bypass for obesity. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:47-55.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Warschkow R, Tarantino I, Folie P, Beutner U, Schmied BM, Bisang P, et al. C-reactive protein 2 days after laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery reliably indicates leaks and moderately predicts morbidity. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:1128-35.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Singh R, Fisher BL. Sensitivity and specificity of postoperative upper GI series following gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2003;13:73-5.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Ganci-Cerrud G, Herrera MF. Role of radiologic contrast studies in the early postoperative period after bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 1999;9:532-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Yu J, Turner MA, Cho SR, Fulcher AS, DeMaria EJ, Kellum JM, et al. Normal anatomy and complications after gastric bypass surgery: helical CT findings. Radiology. 2004;231:753-60.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Durak E, Inabnet WB, Schrope B, Davis D, Daud A, Milone L, et al. Incidence and management of enteric leaks after gastric bypass for morbid obesity during a 10-year period. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2008;4:389-93. Erratum in: Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2008;4:689.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Lee S, Ahn JY, Jung HY, Lee JH, Choi KS, Kim DH, et al. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic and surgical management for postoperative upper gastrointestinal leakage. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:4232-40.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Bège T, Emungania O, Vitton V, Ah-Soune P, Nocca D, Noël P, et al. An endoscopic strategy for management of anastomotic complications from bariatric surgery: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:238-44.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Rodella L, Laterza E, De Manzoni G, Kind R, Lombardo F, Catalano F, et al. Endoscopic clipping of anastomotic leakages in esophagogastric surgery. Endoscopy. 1998;30:453-6.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Raju GS. Endoscopic closure of gastrointestinal leaks. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:1315-20.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Salminen P, Gullichsen R, Laine S. Use of self-expandable metal stents for the treatment of esophageal perforations and anastomotic leaks. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1526-30.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Lippert E, Klebl FH, Schweller F, Ott C, Gelbmann CM, Schölmerich J, et al. Fibrin glue in the endoscopic treatment of fistulae and anastomotic leakages of the gastrointestinal tract. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:303-11.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Wedemeyer J, Schneider A, Manns MP, Jackobs S. Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure of upper intestinal anastomotic leaks. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:708-11.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Pross M, Manger T, Reinheckel T, Mirow L, Kunz D, Lippert H. Endoscopic treatment of clinically symptomatic leaks of thoracic esophageal anastomoses. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51:73-6.
    CrossRef
  28. Truong S, Böhm G, Klinge U, Stumpf M, Schumpelick V. Results after endoscopic treatment of postoperative upper gastrointestinal fistulas and leaks using combined Vicryl plug and fibrin glue. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:1105-8.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Hwang TL, Chen MF. Randomized trial of fibrin tissue glue for low output enterocutaneous fistula. Br J Surg. 1996;83:112.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. Lee YC, Na HG, Suh JH, Park IS, Chung KY, Kim NK. Three cases of fistulae arising from gastrointestinal tract treated with endoscopic injection of Histoacryl. Endoscopy. 2001;33:184-6.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  31. Van Bodegraven AA, Kuipers EJ, Bonenkamp HJ, Meuwissen SG. Esophagopleural fistula treated endoscopically with argon beam electrocoagulation and clips. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;50:407-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  32. Raymer GS, Sadana A, Campbell DB, Rowe WA. Endoscopic clip application as an adjunct to closure of mature esophageal perforation with fistulae. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003;1:44-50.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  33. Wehrmann T, Stergiou N, Vogel B, Riphaus A, Köckerling F, Frenz MB. Endoscopic debridement of paraesophageal, mediastinal abscesses: a prospective case series. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:344-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  34. Mizobuchi S, Kuge K, Maeda H, Matsumoto Y, Yamamoto M, Sasaguri S. Endoscopic clip application for closure of an esophagomediastinal-tracheal fistula after surgery for esophageal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:962-5.
    CrossRef
  35. 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.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  36. Choi CW, Kang DH, Kim HW, Park SB, Kim SJ, Hwang SH, et al. Full covered self-expandable metal stents for the treatment of anastomotic leak using a silk thread. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e7439.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  37. Gomez-Esquivel R, Raju GS. Endoscopic closure of acute esophageal perforations. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2013;15:321.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  38. Ahrens M, Schulte T, Egberts J, Schafmayer C, Hampe J, Fritscher-Ravens A, et al. Drainage of esophageal leakage using endoscopic vacuum therapy: a prospective pilot study. Endoscopy. 2010;42:693-8.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  39. Van Koperen PJ, Van Berge Henegouwen MI, Slors JF, Bemelman WA. Endo-sponge treatment of anastomotic leakage after ileo-anal pouch anastomosis: report of two cases. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10:943-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  40. Glitsch A, von Bernstorff W, Seltrecht U, Partecke I, Paul H, Heidecke CD. Endoscopic transanal vacuum-assisted rectal drainage (ETVARD): an optimized therapy for major leaks from extraperitoneal rectal anastomoses. Endoscopy. 2008;40:192-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  41. Noh SM, Ahn JY, Lee JH, Jung HY, AlGhamdi Z, Kim HR, et al. Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure therapy in patients with anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy: a single-center experience. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2018;2018:1697968.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  42. Choi SI, Park JC, Jung DH, Shin SK, Lee SK, Lee YC. Efficacy of endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure treatment for postoperative anastomotic leak in gastric cancer. Gut Liver. 2020;14:746-54.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  43. Hwang JJ, Jeong YS, Park YS, Yoon H, Shin CM, Kim N, et al. Comparison of endoscopic vacuum therapy and endoscopic stent implantation with self-expandable metal stent in treating postsurgical gastroesophageal leakage. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e3416.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  44. Jung DH, Huh CW, Min YW, Park JC. Endoscopic vacuum therapy for the management of upper GI leaks and perforations: a multicenter retrospective study of factors associated with treatment failure (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2022;95:281-90.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  45. Overcash WT. Natural orifice surgery (NOS) using StomaphyX for repair of gastric leaks after bariatric revisions. Obes Surg. 2008;18:882-5.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  46. Fernandez-Esparrach G, Lautz DB, Thompson CC. Endoscopic repair of gastrogastric fistula after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a less-invasive approach. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2010;6:282-8.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  47. Kumbhari V, Storm AC, Saxena P, Okolo PI 3rd. Closure of a persistent gastric leak using a cardiac septal occluder. Endoscopy. 2014;46(Suppl 1):E147-8.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  48. Wiest R, Tutuian R, Meier B, Nett P. Use of a cardiac occluder for closure of a complex gastric leak after bariatric surgery. Endoscopy. 2014;46(Suppl 1):E487-8.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  49. Cardoso E, Silva RA, Moreira-Dias L. Use of cardiac septal occluder device on upper GI anastomotic dehiscences: a new endoscopic approach (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:1255-8.
    Pubmed CrossRef