leaks and obstruction after gastric resection

Leaks and Obstruction After Gastric Resection

Wahwd Ahmad, MD, Louisville, Kentucky

Phil J. Ha&m&t, MD, Louisville, Kentucky

Hiram C. Polk, Jr., MD, Louisville, Kentucky

There has been a decrease in the use of gastric resection for the treatment of peptic ulcer disease. Less frequent occurrence of the disease and the widespread use of HZ receptor antagonists [I] may be responsible in part, but the type of primary operation has also changed since the introduction of various kinds of vagotomies [2,3]. Despite these changes, gastric resection is still a proved modality for the treatment of recalcitrant peptic ulcer disease and of neoplasms of the stomach. Leaks and obstructions are dreaded complications of gastric resection [4,5] but are seldom described in the current literature. In addition, what is found in the older literature is often controversial. Herein, we present a review of these complications of gastric resection to update the literature and to clarify some of the controversial issues.

Material and Methods

A retrospective review was undertaken at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Louisville, Kentucky, to study 312 gastric resections (307 partial and 5 total) performed between 1968 and 1978. All patients were men, and their ages ranged from 30 to 70 years. Operative data are summarized in Table I.

Of these 312 gastric resections, the most frequent indications (listed in order) were duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer, prepyloric ulcer, and gastric cancer. Vagotomy was performed in 181 patients, and conti- nuity was restored with a Billroth II anastomosis in 193 patients, a Billroth I anastomosis in 114 pa-

From the Department of Surgery, University of Louisville School of Medi- cine, Louisville, Kentucky.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Waheed Ahmad, MD, Department of Surgery, Ambulatory Care Building, University of Louisville, Louisville. Kentucky 40292.

tients, and esophagojejunostomy in 5 patients. Bill- roth II reconstructions were associated with vagotomy in 64 percent of the patients. The Hoffmeister modification was often used and was placed in the antecolic position in 82 percent of the patients. Bill- roth I reconstructions were divided equally into those with and without vagotomy. In most instances, the Shoemaker modification was used.

Indications for gastric resection in patients with duodenal ulcers were perforation (11 patients), obstruction (23 patients), bleeding (26 patients), and intractability (124 patients); for patients with gastric ulcers, obstruction (1 patient), perforation (2 patients), bleeding (15 patients), and intractability (16 patients); and for patients with prepyloric ulcers, perforation (1 patient), obstruction (3 patients), bleeding (10 patients), and intractability (16 patients). Mortality rates were highest when resection was necessitated by cancer (10 percent), bleeding (15 percent), and perforation (28 percent) (Ta- ble II). The mortality rate for elective operations in patients with benign duodenal ulcers was 3.2 percent, and it was exactly half that for elective operations on benign gastric and prepyloric ulcers when the duodenum appeared normal. The mortality rate for emergency resections for benign disease was 12 percent.

Early complications after gastric resection included leaks in 19 patients; obstruction in 12 patients; pneumonia, myocardial infarction, peritoni- tis, and intraperitoneal bleeding in 3 patients each; splenic injury in 2 patients; and gastrointestinal bleeding and gastrocolic fistula in 1 patient each. Late postoperative complications and treatments required are listed in Table III.

Leaks: Nineteen leaks (6 percent) were observed after gastric resection, 14 of which occurred after Billroth II anastomosis and were from the duodenal

Volume 152, September 1986 301

Ahmad et al

TABLE I Management of 312 Patients With Gastric Resections

n Lesion Billroth II

With Vagotomy

Operative Procedure Billroth II Billroth I Billroth I Total

Without Vagotomy With Vagotomy Without Vagotomy Gastrectomy

184 Duodenal ulcer 99 37 39 9 0 65 Gastric ulcer 7 13 8 37 0 30 Prepyloric ulcer 15 5 9 1 0

2 Combined ulcer 1 1 0 0 0 1 Gastrinoma 0 0 0 0 1 1 Gastritis 0 0 0 0 1

(portal hypertension)

29 Cancer 2 13 1 10 3

Total . . 124 69 57 57 5

TABLE II Relatlonshlp ot Mortality to Presentation

Operative Indications

Deaths Duodenal Gastric Preplyoric

Cancer Ulcer Ulcer Ulcer Gastritis n (n = 29) (n = 184) (n = 65) (n = 30) (n= 1)

Elective Intractable ulcer Gastric cancer

Emergency Perforation Bleeding Obstruction

187 . . . 4 . . . 1 . . . 29 3 . . . . . . . . . .

14 . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 52 . . 4 2 . . . 1 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE Ill Complications and Treatments ol Late Postgastric Resection

Complications

Bile gastritis

n -

7

Dumping 5

Diarrhea Bezoar Gallstones Recurrent peptic

ulcer Pancreatic pseudocysts Adhesions with bowel

obstruction

Treatment Medical Surgical

3 2, Tanner Roux-Y 2, Roux-Y

3 2, 10 cm antiperistaltic loop

1 1

2, cholecystectomy 1, transthoracic

vagotomy 1, cyst gastrostomy 2, laparotomy

stump (Table IV). Eleven leaks occurred in patients with duodenal ulcers. Thus, 73 percent of the leaks occurred after Billroth II reconstructions, which were selected for 63 percent of the patients with duodenal ulcer. There were also three leaks after Billroth I anastomosis, and two leaks in the five patients who had esophagogastrectomy.

Four of the patients with cancer (14 percent) had leaks, two after total gastrectomy (one did not re- quire reoperation) and two after Billroth II reconstruction. In the patients with benign disease, 13

patients with duodenal ulcer (7 percent) had leaks compared with only 2 patients (1.6 percent) in whom the duodenum was normal. In patients with benign disease who had a gastrectomy, there were six leaks (3 percent) among patients operated on for intractability, compared with nine leaks (10 percent) in patients who underwent emergency gastrectomy. After Billroth II anastomosis, 1 of 35 retrocolic anastomoses (3 percent) was associated with a duodenal stump leak, compared with 13 of 158 antecolic anastomoses (8 percent). Two of the 13 patients with duodenal ulcers and stump leaks had undergone previous operations for duodenal ulcer.

Twenty-six patients (8 percent) were considered to be at high risk for leaks at gastrectomy and were treated with preventive or protective measures such as duodenostomy with drainage (14 patients), drainage alone (8 patients), or placement of a nasogastric tube secured in the afferent limb (2 patients). Leaks developed in eight of these patients, two with duodenostomies, four with drainage alone, and both patients who had drainage of a nasogastric tube in the afferent limb. Ten patients with leaks had documentation of a difficult stump closure due to posterior or penetrating duodenal ulcer disease. Two patients had undergone duodenal invagination to close the duodenal stump. In one patient, a staple line had been invaginated and oversutured. In no

302 The American Journal of Surgery


TABLE IV Relationshlp of Leaks to Operatlve Procedure and Inltlal Disease’

Procedure Performed

Operative Pts Bilkoth II Billroth I Total Gastrectomies

Indications (n) Leaks Procedures Leaks Procedures Leaks Procedures

Duodenal ulcer Elective 124 5 84 0 40 . . ~ . Emergency 60 6 52 2 a . . . . . .

Gastric ulcer Elective 47 0 16 1 31 . . , . . Emergency 18 0 4 0 14 . . . . . .

Prepyloric ulcer Elective 16 0 11 0 5 . . , . Emergency 14 1 9 0 5 . . .

Cancer Elective 29 2 26 * . . . . . 2 3

l No leaks were found after operations for combined ulcers in two patients, gastrinoma in one patient, and gastritis in one patient.

patient was a mechanical defect identified at the termination of the afferent limb.

Evidence of the leak occurred within 5 to 21 days in 18 patients (average 10 days). Curiously, one patient presented 1 year later with a subphrenic abscess at the duodenal stump which represented chronic leakage. In 14 patients, the presenting symptoms were high fever, leukocytosis, and abdominal pain. Pleural effusion was the initial sign in three patients, and jaundice was the initial sign in one patient. One patient with an esophagojejunostomy had a controlled leak that was treated conser- vatively, and the patient recovered. The other 18 patients all needed drainage or improvement of drainage, and 6 needed more than one reoperation. Two patients had a duodenostomy in addition to external drainage.

The total duration of hospital stay for surviving patients was 1 to 2 months for 12 patients and more than 2 months for 2 patients. Five of the patients with leaks (26 percent) died as a result of uncon- trolled sepsis, and these accounted for one fourth of the postoperative deaths after gastrectomy. Two of the surviving patients had persistent duodenal fis- tulas which needed excision at later elective operation. Data regarding the 19 patients with leaks are listed in Table V.

Gastric retention and obstruction: Twelve cases of postoperative gastric outlet obstruction [6-8] were observed for an overall incidence of 4 percent (Table VI). Four obstructions occurred after Billroth I reconstruction without vagotomy, four after Billroth I reconstruction with vagotomy, and four after Billroth II reconstruction with vagotomy. There was no incidence of obstruction after Billroth II reconstruction without vagotomy or after total gastrectomy. All but one of the obstructions fol- lowed operation for duodenal ulcer. Four patients had emergency operations.

Three of four patients with obstruction after Bill- roth II reconstruction with vagotomy and all of the

patients with retrocolic anastomoses had a mechanical cause for their complications and required early reoperation. In two of the three patients, sutures from the mesocolon to the stomach had disinte- grated and the gastrojejunostomy was pulled up and twisted. Another patient was found to have a twisted gastrojejunostomy caused by a different mecha- nism. The fourth patient of this group with a vagotomy and an antecolic anastomosis was conservative- ly treated, which resulted in remission.

Three of eight patients had early obstruction after Billroth I anastomosis with vagotomy and re- sponded to prolonged nasogastric suction. Five other patients presented at 7 months postoperatively or longer and required reoperation. Two-layer anastomoses had previously been performed for duodenal ulcers that were not resected; in three, the anastomoses included the edge of the ulcer and in another, the duodenum was noted as narrow. Four of these patients had conversion to a Billroth II anastomosis, and one had revision of a gastroduodenostomy.

Twenty-seven patients who previously had undergone operation for duodenal ulcer with preoper- ative obstruction underwent gastric resection as fol- lows: 1 Billroth I procedure, 2 Billroth I procedures with vagotomy, 7 Billroth II procedures, and 17 Billroth II procedures with vagotomy. Postopera- tive obstruction occurred in none of these patients, although vagotomy had been included in 19 of the operations.

Gastric retention and obstruction did not con- tribute to mortality in this series. All patients sur- vived and eventually improved after appropriate corrective treatment. Data regarding the 12 patients with impaired gastric emptying are summarized in Table VII.

Comments

The use of surgery for the treatment of peptic ulcer disease was decreasing before the advent of the Hz receptor antagonists, although the latter ap-

Volume 152, September 1986 303

TA

BL

E V

D

etai

ls o

f 10

Lea

ks

in 1

9 P

atie

nts

Dia

gn

osi

s In

dic

atio

n

Op

erat

ion

C

om

men

ts

Dra

in

DD

T

ime

to L

eak

(d)

Man

agem

ent

Ou

tco

me

DU

O

bst

ruct

ion

DU

In

trac

tab

ility

RD

U

Ble

edin

g

DU

In

trac

tab

ility

DU

O

bst

ruct

ion

DU

P

erfo

rati

on

GU

In

trac

tab

ility

CA

C

A

CA

DU

DU

DU

Intr

acta

bili

ty

Intr

acta

bili

ty

Intr

acta

bili

ty

Intr

acta

bili

ty

Intr

acta

bili

ty

Bill

roth

II,

ante

colic

B

illro

th I

I, an

teco

lic

vag

oto

my

Bill

roth

II,

ante

colic

B

illro

th I

Po

ster

ior

ulc

er,

req

uir

ed N

isse

n m

aneu

ver

Sca

rrin

g,

dif

ficu

lt c

losu

re

No

Pen

rose

No

10

No

7

No

6

No

5

No

10

Ye

s 7

. . .

. . .

Bill

roth

II,

ante

colic

va

go

tom

y B

illro

th I

le

ak;

Bill

roth

II,

ante

colic

B

illro

th I

Mas

s ar

ou

nd

d

uo

den

um

D

iffi

cult

clo

sure

. .

Pen

rose

Su

mp

Dra

inag

e R

eco

vere

d

Dra

inag

e F

istu

la,

exci

sed

D

rain

age

Fis

tula

, ex

cise

d

Bill

roth

II,

Die

d f

rom

d

rain

age.

DD

fo

r le

ak

sep

sis

Dra

inag

e,

12th

rib

En

d D

D 8

d

rain

age

Rec

ove

red

Rec

ove

red

. .

No

21

R

eco

vere

d

Bill

roth

II

To

tal

gas

trec

tom

y T

ota

l g

astr

ecto

my

Bill

roth

II,

ante

colic

va

go

tom

y B

illro

th I

I, an

teco

lic

retr

oco

lic

vag

ato

my

Bill

roth

II,

ante

colic

va

go

tom

y

. . . . .

. . .

No

No

Dra

inag

e,

colo

sto

my

for

colo

n f

istu

la,

gas

tro

jeju

no

sto

my

for

ob

stru

ctio

n

Dra

inag

e D

rain

age

. .

No

E

xpec

tan

t

Dif

ficu

lt c

losu

re

Ye

s

Po

ster

ior

ulc

er,

nee

ded

Nis

sen

man

euve

r,

om

enta

l p

ou

ch

. .

Dif

ficu

lt c

losu

re,

om

enta

l co

ver

7 9 12

10

10 9

Dra

inag

e

. .

. D

rain

age,

tw

ice

Dra

inag

e tw

ice

Rec

ove

red

D

ied

Rec

ove

red

Die

d

Die

d

Rec

ove

red

DU

In

trac

tab

ility

D

U

Ob

stru

ctio

n

Bill

roth

II,

ante

colic

B

illro

th I

I, an

teco

lic

vag

oto

my

CA

PU

DU

Intr

acta

bili

ty

Ob

stru

ctio

n

Intr

acta

bili

ty

Per

fora

tio

n

Bill

roth

II,

ante

colic

va

go

tom

y B

illro

th I

I, an

teco

lic

vag

oto

my

Bill

roth

II,

ante

colic

va

go

tom

y B

illro

th I

I,

Om

enta

l co

ver,

d

iffi

cult

clo

sure

D

iffi

cult

clo

sure

Pen

rose

.

. . .

.

Su

mp

Pen

rose

. .

7 D

rain

age

Rec

ove

red

N

aso

gas

tric

7

Dra

inag

e R

eco

vere

d

tub

e, e

ffer

ent

limb

Yes

D

rain

age

Nas

og

astr

ic

limb

D

rain

age

. .

. . .

Dra

inag

e,

twic

e D

rain

age

Rec

ove

red

Rec

ove

red

Fis

tula

,

Dif

ficu

lt c

losu

re

8 7 1 yr

21

RD

U

. . .

ante

colic

va

go

tom

y

CA

=

can

cer;

DD

= d

uo

den

ost

om

y; D

U =

d

uo

den

al u

lcer

; G

U =

g

astr

ic u

lcer

; P

U =

p

rep

ylo

ric

ulc

er;

RD

U =

re

curr

ent

du

od

enal

ulc

er.


TABLE VI Relationship ol Gastric Retention to Operative Procedure and lnltlal Disease*

Condition

Billroth II With Vagotomy

Patients With GR Procedures

Billroth II Without Vagotomy


Billroth I With Vagotomy


Billroth I Without Vagotomy


Duodenal ulcer Elective 1 64 0 20 3 33 3 7

(n = 124) Emergency 2 35 0 17 1 6 1 2

(n = 60) Gastric ulcer

Elective 1 5 0 11 0 6 0 25

(n = 47) Emergency 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 12

(n = 16) Prepyloric ulcer

Elective 0 8 0 3 0 4 0 1

(n = 16) Emergency 0 7 0 2 0 5 0 0

(n = 14)

l There was no retention after operation for cancer in 29 patients, combined ulcer in 2 patients, gastrinoma in 1 patient, or gastritis in 1 patient.

GR = gastric retention.

TABLE VII Details of Postoperatlve Obstructions In 12 Patients

Diagnosis Presentation Operation Time to Obstruction Treatment Comments

DU DU

DU

DU

DU

DU DU

DU DU

GU

DU

DU Intractability

Bleeding

Intractability

Intractability

Intractability

intractability Bleeding

Intractability Bleeding

Intractability

Intractability

Billroth I Billroth II,

antecolic vagotomy Billroth I

Billroth I, vagotomy


Billroth I Billroth I,

vagotomy Billroth I Billroth II,

retrocolic vagotomy Billroth II,

retrocolic vagotomy


Billroth II,

1 year Postop, poor emptying

7 months

Postop, poor emptying

6 years

7 months Postop, poor empyting

8 months Postop, obstruction

Postop, obstruction

Postop, poor emptying

Postop, obstruction

Billroth II, antecolic Nasogastric tube

Billroth II, antecolic

Nasogastric tube

Billroth I

Billroth II, antecolic Nasogastric tube

Billroth II Reoperation

Reoperation

Nasogastric tube

Reoperation

Recovered Recovered

Recovered, two-layer gastroduodenostomy

Recovered

Fibrosis

Recovered Recovered

Recovered Gastrojejunostomy

pulled up Gastrojejunostomy

pulled up and twisted, regastrojejunostomy

Recovered

Gastrojejunostomy pulled up retrocolic vagotomy

DU = duodenal ulcer; GU = gastric ulcer.

pear to have contributed to a further decrease in its use. Vagotomy and pyloroplasty have long been in competition with gastric resection as the operative treatments of choice in patients with duodenal ulcer [9]. In some centers, supraselective vagotomy is of- fered as an alternative [2,3]. These trends have de- creased the frequency of the use of gastric resection. In the presence of advanced duodenal ulcer, however, vagotomy and antrectomy remain the most effective operations short of total gastrectomy. In

the presence of gastric ulcer or cancer, some form of resection is necessary. Although the overall incidence of complications after gastrectomy is less [6-14, it becomes necessary to ensure that the rela- tive incidence does not increase due to inattention to its problems.

Patients with gastric cancer are in a somewhat different category than those with benign peptic ulcers. Vagotomy was added to partial gastrectomy in only three such patients in our series. Duodenal

Volume 152,StqHember 1996 305

Ahmad et al

leaks developed in two of those patients after Bill- roth II anastomoses, and leaks developed in two of the three patients with cancer who received total gastrectomies. None of the cancer patients had postoperative obstruction.

The selection of operation for benign diseases reflected the opinions of the attending staff; however, duodenal and prepyloric ulcers were considered directly related to acid output, and vagotomy was added to the gastric resection by most surgeons. Gastric ulcer, on the other hand, was usually treated with resection without vagotomy.

Postoperative leaks accounted for approximately one fourth of the postoperative deaths and usually required one or more operations. Leaks were more common after emergency operations and occurred predominantly after difficult stump closures in operations for duodenal ulcer. Instances of afferent loop obstruction were not identified [IO]. The in- creased incidence of postoperative leaks after antecolic anastomoses may be at least partially due to a preference of the staff for that type of anastomosis in difficult operations. When a high risk situation was recognized, no preventive measure was totally reliable, but duodenostomy achieved better results in 12 of 14 patients than drainage or intraluminal decompression [12,13].

No patient died from impairment of gastric emptying, but three patients with Billroth II procedures required early revision and five patients with Bill- roth I procedures required later revision. Obstruc- tion also occurred predominantly after resection for duodenal ulcer. Vagotomy in four patients, three of whom had Billroth I procedures, was associated with early retention that subsided with conservative treatment. However, vagotomy appeared to have no relationship to the need for reoperation in eight patients. The use of vagotomy in patients with pre- operative obstruction did not appear to adversely affect the results, although some staff members thought that vagotomy was contraindicated in such patients.

Complications in 103 patients with peptic ulcer disease who had Billroth I procedures included eight patients with obstruction, three patients with leaks, and one patient each with pneumonia, bile gastritis, dumping, and diarrhea. Three of these patients died. Complications in 178 patients with peptic ulcer disease who had Billroth II procedures included 12 patients with leaks, 6 patients with bile gastritis, 4 patients with obstruction, 2 patients each with pneumonia, splenic injury, and gallstones, and 1 patient each with recurrent ulcer and postoperative hemorrhage. Twelve patients with this reconstruction died. A comparison of these complications suggests that leaks tend to occur in Billroth II procedures and obstruction tends to occur in Bill- roth I procedures [14,15]. The low incidence of su- ture line bleeding and clinically significant dumping

is noteworthy. Billroth I reconstruction was usually selected for patients with normal duodenums, and obstructions occurred only in the few patients with retained ulcers of the duodenum. A Billroth II procedure was the usual choice in emergency situations and in patients with badly diseased duodenums, and these accounted for most of the mortality in this series.

The role of afferent loop obstruction in stump blowouts was recognized by the staff, and this recog- nition may have minimized the incidence of this complication. Difficult stump closure was avoided in some cases by pyloroplasty or gastrojejunostomy. When a difficult stump closure is unavoidable, the use of a tube duodenostomy through the side of the duodenum-not the closure line-is probably the best, if not an infallible, preventive measure 1131. External drainage permits earlier diagnosis but has no proved preventive value. Postoperatively, the less dramatic signs of leakage should be searched out. When a leak does occur, prompt and adequate drainage and augmentation of drainage are usually necessary, despite any previous operative precau- tions.

Summary

Postoperative gastric retention may be minimized by avoiding the use of the Billroth I reconstruction when a large duodenal ulcer must be retained. Postoperative gastric retention is more likely to remit with conservative therapy if the procedure was a Billroth I reconstruction with a vagotomy. In other instances where there is difficulty in gastric emptying, a mechanical cause should be strongly suspected. The optimum duration of a conservative trial with suction for postoperative gastric retention may be debatable, and contrast radiogra- phy or endoscopy may be helpful; however, patience and suction are not long-term substitutes for a needed operation.

References

1. Gibson R, Hirschowitz Bi, Hutchinson G. Actions of metia- mide, an HP-histamine receptor antagonist, on gastric H+ and pepsin secretion in dogs. Gastroenterology 1974;67: 93-9.

2. Johnston D, Wilkinson AR. Highly selective vagotomy without a drainage procedure in the treatment of duodenal ulcer. Br J Surg 1970;57:289-96.

3. Sawyer JL, Scott HW Jr. Selective gastric vagotomy with antrectomy or pyioropiasty. Ann Surg 1971;174:541-7.

4. Pearce CW, Jordan GJ Jr, DeBakey ME. Intra-abdominal complications following distal subtotal gastrectomy for benign gastroduodenai ulceration. Surgery 1956;42:447-61.

5. Hardy JD. Problems associated with gastric surgery. A review of 604 consecutive patients with annotation. Am J Surg 1964;108:699-716.

6. Jordan GL Jr, Walker LL. Severe problems with gastric emptying after gastric surgery. Ann Surg 1973;177:660-6.

7. Cohen AM, Dttinger LW. Delayed gastric emptying following

306 The American Journal 01 Surgery


gastrectomy. Ann Surg 1976; 184:689-96. 8. Donovan I, Alexander-Williams J. Postoperative gastric reten-

tion and delayed gastric emptying. Surg Clin North Am 1976;56:1413-9.

9. Farmer DA, Harrower HW, Smithwick RH. The choice of surgery in peptic ulcer disease. Am J Surg 1970;120: 295-305.

10. Buckberg GD. Acute obstruction of the afferent loop after gastrectomy. Am J Surg 1967;113:682-7.

11. Cooperman AM. Postgastrectomy syndromes. Surg Annu

1981;13:139-61. 12. Lamphier TA, Crooker C. Catheter duodenostomy for the

difficult duodenal stump. South Med J 1968;61:751-7. 13. Dardik I, Dardik H, Shumofsky E, Gliedman ML. Lateral T-tube

duodenostomy. Duodenal stump management and mano- metrics. Arch Surg 1973;107:89-90.

14. Jesseph JE. The trouble with Billroth II is Am J Surg 1974; 128:654-6.

15. Griffen WO Jr. Whither goest the duodenal stump blowout? Arch Surg 1973;107:11.

volume 152, -ember 1988 307

leaks and obstruction after gastric resection

Documents