• 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
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • 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 / Staple Line Reinforcement in Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy

Staple Line Reinforcement in Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy

Objectives: Several series document that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is as safe as the traditional open approach. However, pancreatic leaks and peri-pancreatic fluid collections remain common morbidities. This report analyzes three methods of staple line reinforcement following laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, with and without splenic preservation, with regards to post-operative pancreatic fistulas and peri-pancreatic fluid collections.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 23 patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with and without splenic preservation from November 2003 to August 2009. Clinical, demographic, operative and postoperative data were recorded. Patients were divided into three groups based upon the type of reinforcement used on the transection line. These groups included (1) no additional reinforcement, (2) suture or omental reinforcement, or (3) the use of fibrin glue, flowseal or seamguard. A chi-squared test was used to statistically assess differences in morbidity between groups.

Results: 23 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies were performed. The mean patient age was 52 ±11 years, and 14 patients were female (61%). Mean follow-up time was 39 ±30 weeks. Conversion to open occurred in 6 cases (26%), and the spleen was preserved in 16 cases (70%). Median blood loss was 150ml, and median length of stay was 7 ±4 days. The mean size of pancreatic lesions was 3.4 ±2.5cm. Pancreatic fistulas occurred in 3 cases (13%), while peri-pancreatic fluid collections developed in 8 cases (34%). There was one mortality (4%) that occurred three months postoperatively from metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. No additional reinforcement was used in 6 patients (26%). Suture reinforcement and/or an omental patch were used in 8 patients (35%). Reinforcement materials such as fibrin glue, floseal or seamguard were used in 9 cases (39%). Two pancreatic fistulas (33%), and 2 fluid collections (33%) occurred in the group without reinforcement. One pancreatic fistula (13%) and 3 fluid collections (38%) occurred in the group with suture/omental reinforcement. No fistulas and 3 fluid collections (33%) occurred in the group with fibrin glue, floseal, or seamguard reinforcement. Although a trend of decreased pancreatic fistulae with reinforcement was observed, this did not reach statistical significance. Splenic preservation did not affect morbidity.

Conclusions: This series of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies is comparable with previously reported results in terms of overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula and peri-pancreatic fluid collection rates. Reinforcement of the pancreatic transection line may reduce the incidence of pancreatic fistula. Splenic preservation did not seem to affect the incidence of morbidity. Further investigation is needed to determine the optimal method of pancreatic transection line reinforcement.


Session: Poster

Program Number: P429

View Poster

196

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