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

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • 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
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 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
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • 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
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and 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
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • 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
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Marginal Ulcers Can Be Done With Superior Outcomes Compared With Open Repair

Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Marginal Ulcers Can Be Done With Superior Outcomes Compared With Open Repair

Girish Luthra, MD, Vladan N Obradovic, MD, Aamir Akmal, MD, Eliah M Malka, Corrine Blumling, MD, Lindsey Stratchko, MSIII, Mathew E Plank, PAC, Andrea L Plank, Nicole Woll, PhD, Jon D Gabrielsen, MD FACS, Chad Lee, Anthony T Petrick, MD FACS. Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania

 

Introduction: Perforated marginal ulcers represent a rare, but serious complication after RYGB almost invariably requiring operative management. We hypothesize that laparoscopic repair (LR) of perforated marginal ulcers after RYGB is feasible and can be done in experienced centers  with lower morbidity when compared to open repair (OR).
Methods: A review of the institutional database of patients with a previous RYGB for the treatment of morbid obesity was carried out to identify those diagnosed with perforated marginal ulcers between March 2001 and July 2011. 24 records were identified and retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 19 patients had undergone LR and 5 patients OR. These groups were also analyzed with respect to their clinical presentation, age and BMI at presentation with the ulcer, presence of peritoneal contamination, and mean follow up. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of post-operative complications in these two groups with secondary outcome measures including OR times, EBL, LOS, and ICU stay. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact and unpaired t tests.
Results: The average age of the patients was 46.9 years in the laparoscopic and 54.0 years in the open group, though this did not reach statistical significance. The average BMI at presentation was significantly higher in the open group (48.1 vs 29.6; p=0.024). Of the 19 patients with LR, 10 presented with an acute free perforation. The remaining 9 patients presented with intractable symptoms (pain, nausea, vomiting, poor oral intake, weight loss) or bleeding and were found to have a chronic, walled-off perforation at surgery. Of the 5 patients with OR, 1 had a free perforation and 4 presented with intractable symptoms. 9 patients had generalized peritoneal contamination in the LR group, 1 had localized contamination and 9 had completely contained perforations. In the open group, 1 had generalized contamination whilst the other 4 had completely contained perforations. Our mean follow up in the LR group was 18 months and in the OR group 35 months.
There was a trend toward a higher complication rate in the OR group (60% vs 32%). No statistically significant difference in operative time was noted between groups (162 min. LR, 212 min. OR); however, blood loss (46.7 ml vs 166 ml; p= .004), length of stay (3 days vs 12.2 days; p= 0.004), and percentage of patients requiring ICU stays (11% vs 60%; p=0.04) were significantly lower in patients undergoing LR.
Conclusions: Laparoscopic repair of a perforated marginal ulcer is feasible and compared favorably to open repair in our series. LR was associated with lower blood loss, shorter length of stay, and fewer patients requiring ICU admission compared to open repair. Although the groups are small, the laparoscopic approach to perforated marginal ulcers seems preferrable when undertaken by surgeons experienced in revisional laparoscopic bariatric surgery.


Session Number: Poster – Poster Presentations
Program Number: P479
View Poster

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

Refine Search