Novel device to detect enterotomies in real time during laparoscopy: first in human trial during Roux-en-y gastric bypass

  • Elisabeth K. Wynne
  • Dan E. AzaguryEmail author
New Technology



Undetected bowel perforations occur in 0.3–1% of laparoscopic surgical procedures with an associated mortality rate of 5.3%.


The purpose of the study was to evaluate the clinical feasibility of a novel medical device to accurately detect bowel gas, specifically hydrogen (H2) and methane (CH4), from a sample of gas from the abdominal cavity during laparoscopic surgery when a known bowel wall perforation has occurred. Setting: University (Academic) Hospital.


A prospective single arm study was composed of 8 patients undergoing a standard laparoscopic roux-en-y gastric bypass. At seven time points during the operation intra-abdominal gas was pulled from the abdominal cavity and analyzed using the novel device for H2 and CH4. The time points included after insufflation (T1), after first jejunotomy (T2), after closure of jejunotomy (T3), after recycle of carbon dioxide gas (T4), after gastrostomy (T5), after jejunotomy (T6), at procedure end (T7).


Eight patients were enrolled in the study; in 7 (87.5%) patients data from all 7 time points were obtained. After the first opening of the small bowel (T2) mean hydrogen levels were significantly increased compared to baseline hydrogen levels (T1, T4, T7) (p < 0.001). At all time points, there was no significant detection of methane. There were no intra-operative or post-operative complications during the study.


Hydrogen gas is released into the intra-abdominal cavity when bowel is opened and can be detected in real time using a novel device during laparoscopic surgery. The presence or absence of hydrogen directly correlates to whether the bowel is open (perforated) or intact. This device could be used in the future to detect unintended bowel perforations during laparoscopic surgery, prior to the conclusion of the operation. This technology could also potentially lead to novel mechanism for detecting postoperative leaks using gas detection technology.


Laparoscopy Bowel injury Bariatric Bowel perforation Bowel gas Injury 



The company made the device available at no cost and provided support for its use. No funding was received for this trial.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


Dr. Elisabeth Wynne and Dr. Dan Azagury have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Al-Qurayshi Z, Srivastav S, Slakey DP, Kandil E (2016) Risk of intraoperative injury of nearby structures: national trend, distribution, and burden. J Am Coll Surg 222:624–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Voort M, Heijnsdijk EA, Gouma DJ (2004) Bowel injury as a complication of laparoscopy. Br J Surg 91:1253–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwartz MJ, Faiena I, Cinman N, Kucharczyk J, Meriggi JS, Waingankar N, Richstone L, Kavoussi LR (2010) Laparoscopic bowel injury in retroperitoneal surgery: current incidence and outcomes. J Urol 184:589–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dindo D, Schafer M, Muller MK, Clavien P-A, Hahnloser D (2010) Laparoscopy for small bowel obstruction: the reason for conversion matters. Surg Endosc 24:792–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wullstein C, Gross E (2003) Laparoscopic compared with conventional treatment of acute adhesive small bowel obstruction. Br J Surg 90:1147–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Suter M, Zermatten P, Halkic N, Martinet O, Bettschart V (2000) Laparoscopic management of mechanical small bowel obstruction. Surg Endosc 14:478–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Llarena NC, Shah AB, Milad MP (2015) Bowel injury in gynecologic laparoscopy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 125:1407–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Galleano R, Franceschi A, Ciciliot M, Falchero F, Cuschieri A (2011) Errors in laparoscopic surgery: what surgeons should know. Minerva Chir 66:107–117Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deffieux X, Ballester M, Collinet P, Fauconnier A, Pierre F, Obstetricians FNCoGa (2011) Risks associated with laparoscopic entry: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 158:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Singh JP, Steward MJ, Booth TC, Mukhtar H, Murray D (2010) Evolution of imaging for abdominal perforation. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 92:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feldman M, Friedman L, Brandt L (2015) Fordtran’s Gastrointestinal and liver disease—pathophysiology, diagnosis, management, 10th edn, SaundersGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sharma M, Makharia G (2000) Intestinal gas—its syndromes. JK Science 2:75–80Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sahakian AB, Jee SR, Pimentel M (2010) Methane and the gastrointestinal tract. Dig Dis Sci 55:2135–2143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sosna J, Bar-Ziv J, Libson E, Eligulashvili M, Blachar A (2008) CT colonography: positioning order and intracolonic pressure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations