Sofía Lorenzo Mañas, Rafael Restrepo Núñez, Kléber Falcón Bonilla, Amaia González Rivas, Javier Goncalves Morales, Alfredo Vivas López
In this preliminary series, the Bendos Q powered stapling system was associated with favorable short-term perioperative outcomes in LSG, with no staple-line complications or major postoperative events observed. Although these findings are promising, the small sample size, single-center design, and absence of a comparator group warrant caution; larger comparative studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm the safety of this device.
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most commonly performed bariatric procedure worldwide, but staple-line complications remain among the most feared adverse events, with leaks reported in approximately 1-5% of cases. The Bendos Q powered stapling system is a new device designed to improve tissue compression and staple-line consistency.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively maintained database at a single bariatric center (July-December 2025), including the first consecutive series of patients who underwent primary LSG with the Bendos Q system. Primary outcomes were staple-line bleeding, staple-line leak, and major complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.
RESULTS: Twenty-four consecutive patients (58.3% women) underwent LSG. Mean age was 39.8±10.2 years and mean body mass index was 37.6±4.9 kg/m2. Gastric transection was performed exclusively with green cartridges. Mean operative time was 65±10 minutes, with 5.1±0.7 stapler firings. No intraoperative complications occurred, and hemoglobin remained stable (13.0±0.6 g/dL at discharge). No staple-line bleeding, leaks, major complications, or reoperations were observed. Mean hospital stay was 2 days (range, 1-3).
CONCLUSION: In this preliminary series, the Bendos Q powered stapling system was associated with favorable short-term perioperative outcomes in LSG, with no staple-line complications or major postoperative events observed. Although these findings are promising, the small sample size, single-center design, and absence of a comparator group warrant caution; larger comparative studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm the safety of this device.