Literature DB >> 11754853

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of route of reconstruction after esophagectomy for cancer.

J D Urschel1, D M Urschel, J D Miller, W F Bennett, J E Young.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A gastric conduit is usually used to reconstruct the foregut after esophagectomy for cancer. It can be transposed through a posterior or anterior mediastinal route. The choice of route is often debated but there is little evidence to support the use of one route over the other. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the effect of route of reconstruction on patient outcomes.
METHODS: Medline and manual searches were done (completed independently and in duplicate) to identify all published RCTs that addressed the issue of route of gastric conduit reconstruction after esophagectomy for cancer. The selection process was inclusive; no trials were excluded. Trial validity assessment was done and a trial quality score was assigned. Major outcomes for quantitative data synthesis included operative mortality, anastomotic leaks, cardiac morbidity, and pulmonary morbidity. A random-effects model was used and relative risk was the principal measure of effect. Systematic qualitative review was used for other outcomes such as duration of ventilation, length of hospital stay, operative blood loss, duration of surgery, anastomotic strictures, dysphagia, gastric emptying, and quality of life. Data on cancer survival were not available in the RCTs.
RESULTS: Six RCTs were selected with quality scores ranging from 1 to 4 (5-point Jadad scale). Selection and validity agreement was strong. Relative risk (95% confidence interval; P value), expressed as posterior versus anterior mediastinal route (treatment versus control), was 0.56 (0.17, 1.82; P = 0.34) for mortality, 1.01 (0.35, 2.94; P = 0.98) for leaks, 0.43 (0.17, 1.12; P = 0.08) for cardiac complications, and 0.67 (0.34, 1.33; P = 0.26) for pulmonary complications. Systematic qualitative review did not suggest any difference in other perioperative outcomes or conduit function for the two routes of reconstruction.
CONCLUSIONS: Data synthesized from existing RCTs show that posterior and anterior mediastinal routes of reconstruction are associated with similar outcomes after esophagectomy for cancer. However, a difference in outcomes for the two reconstructive routes remains possible. Further trials with larger numbers of patients are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11754853     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9610(01)00763-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg        ISSN: 0002-9610            Impact factor:   2.565


  21 in total

1.  Comparison of the short-term health-related quality of life in patients with esophageal cancer with different routes of gastric tube reconstruction after minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  Hao Wang; Lijie Tan; Mingxiang Feng; Yi Zhang; Qun Wang
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-09-21       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Impact of the route of reconstruction on post-operative morbidity and malnutrition after esophagectomy: a multicenter cohort study.

Authors:  Makoto Yamasaki; Hiroshi Miyata; Takushi Yasuda; Osamu Shiraishi; Tsuyoshi Takahashi; Masaaki Motoori; Masahiko Yano; Hitoshi Shiozaki; Masaki Mori; Yuichiro Doki
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal.

Authors:  Elijah Dixon; Morad Hameed; Francis Sutherland; Deborah J Cook; Christopher Doig
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Comparison of effects in randomized controlled trials with observational studies in digestive surgery.

Authors:  Satoru Shikata; Takeo Nakayama; Yoshinori Noguchi; Yoshinori Taji; Hisakazu Yamagishi
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 5.  The esophageal anastomosis: traditional methods to prevent leak.

Authors:  Daniel P Raymond
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Esophageal anastomosis - how the granulation phase of wound healing improves the incidence of anastomotic leakage.

Authors:  Renata Tabola; Katarzyna Augoff; Andrzej Lewandowski; Piotr Ziolkowski; Piotr Szelachowski; Krzysztof Grabowski
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 2.967

7.  Retrosternal Reconstruction Can be a Risk Factor for Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis After Esophagectomy.

Authors:  Takamasa Takahashi; Masahide Fukaya; Kazushi Miyata; Yayoi Sakatoku; Masato Nagino
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 8.  [Anastomoses in the upper gastrointestinal tract].

Authors:  K Schwameis; J Zacherl
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 0.955

9.  The use of self-expanding silicone stents in esophageal cancer care: optimal pre-, peri-, and postoperative care.

Authors:  Robert Martin; Ryan Duvall; Susan Ellis; Charles R Scoggins
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-03-25       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Quality of life associated with surgery for esophageal cancer: differences between collar and intrathoracic anastomoses.

Authors:  Christian E Schmidt; Beate Bestmann; Thomas Küchler; Andreas Schmid; Bernd Kremer
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2004-03-04       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.