• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Device related complications of gastric electric stimulation frequently necessitate re-operation

Device related complications of gastric electric stimulation frequently necessitate re-operation

Andrew T Strong, MD1, Ivy N Haskins, MD1, Matthew Davis, MD1, Kevin El-Hayek, MD1, Michael S Cline, DO2, Matthew Kroh, MD1, John H Rodriguez, MD1. 1Section of Surgical Endoscopy, Dept of General Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 2Department of Gastroenterology, Cleveland Clinic

Introduction: Gastric electric stimulation (GES) has been an option for patients with medically refractory gastroparesis for more than 15 years. Prior to implantation, patients are counseled that devices will need to be periodically exchanged for battery depletion and could be removed if infection or erosion of the device or leads develops. However, additional indications for re-intervention exist.

Methods: Demographic and operative information is prospectively collected at our institution for all patients undergoing GES therapy with Enterra® or Enterra2® (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) as a humanitarian use device. Patients who had undergone local revision, or had part or all of the GES system replaced since initial implantation from January 2002 to July 2016 were retrospectively identified. Patients were excluded if battery depletion was the only indication for reoperation. Operative and 30 day follow up information was collected.

Results: A total of 209 patients received GES therapy at our institution during the study period. There were 44 (21.1%) patients who had reoperations for GES revision or replacement; 8 of these patients had reoperation for battery depletion only and were thus excluded from our analysis. A total of 36 (17.2%) patients remained. This cohort had a median age of 53.9 years (IQR 31.2-48.3) and average BMI of 24.6 +/- 4.5 kg/m2 at the time of GES insertion. Eleven patients had diabetic gastroparesis and 25 patients had idiopathic gastroparesis. A total of 55 reoperations were performed in these 36 patients. The median time to first surgical intervention was 16.9 months. The median number of re-operations was 1 (range 1-4). There were 26 devices were replaced (47.2%), most commonly for unspecified device failure (n=9, 16.4%), followed by perceived shocking sensation (n=5, 9.1%) and lead failure/fracture (n=3, 5.4%).

Twenty-one generators (31.8%) were revised in place, most commonly for generator flipping or migration along the abdominal wall (n=14, 25.4%), followed by erosion or infection (n=3, 5.4%). In eight patients device explant was their final operation. There were no intraoperative complications. Complications after re-intervention included seroma formation in 6 patients (10.9%), gastrointestinal bleeding in 2 patients (3.6%), 1 superficial wound infection (1.8%) and 1 organ space infection (1.8%) requiring reoperation.

Conclusion: GES is shown to be effective for patients with both idiopathic and diabetic gastroparesis. GES device related complications needing re-intervention may occur more frequently than previously reported, and may represent a potentially significant burden for patients.


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 80024

Program Number: P008

Presentation Session: Poster of Distinction (Non CME)

Presentation Type: PDIST

54

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals