BACKGROUND: The morbidity and mortality of anastomotic complications after esophagectomy have gradually decreased in recent years. However, swallowing difficulties and reflux continue to burden patients jeopardizing their quality of life. In the present study we performed endoscopic evaluation of the outcomes of esophagogastrostomy by analyzing the presence of anastomotic stenosis and reflux esophagitis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on 74 patients who underwent esophagogastrostomy after esophagectomy by one surgeon between January 1995 and December 2004. Fifty-three patients had an endoscopic examination during follow-up (29 +/- 23.6 months, range = 5-111 months). Reflux esophagitis and stenosis at the anastomostic site were analyzed according to the surgical technique used and the location of the esophagogastrostomy. RESULTS: The mean age at the time of repair was 60.3 +/- 8.87 (range = 39-81) years. Cervical anastomosis was performed in 26 patients and intrathoracic anastomosis in 27 patients. No significant statistical difference in the frequency of anastomotic stenosis was observed between the two groups (p = 0.829); reflux esophagitis was noted in three patients in the cervical anastomosis group and in 14 patients in the intrathoracic anastomosis group (p = 0.041). For all patients, 23 received a hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomosis and 30 a circular stapled one. There was no significant statistical difference in anastomotic stenosis (p = 0.689) and reflux esophagitis (p = 0.879) in comparisons between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Cervical anastomosis resulted in a better outcome for esophagogastrostomy by lowering the risk of reflux esophagitis; this outcome might improve the patient's quality of life.
BACKGROUND: The morbidity and mortality of anastomotic complications after esophagectomy have gradually decreased in recent years. However, swallowing difficulties and reflux continue to burden patients jeopardizing their quality of life. In the present study we performed endoscopic evaluation of the outcomes of esophagogastrostomy by analyzing the presence of anastomotic stenosis and reflux esophagitis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on 74 patients who underwent esophagogastrostomy after esophagectomy by one surgeon between January 1995 and December 2004. Fifty-three patients had an endoscopic examination during follow-up (29 +/- 23.6 months, range = 5-111 months). Reflux esophagitis and stenosis at the anastomostic site were analyzed according to the surgical technique used and the location of the esophagogastrostomy. RESULTS: The mean age at the time of repair was 60.3 +/- 8.87 (range = 39-81) years. Cervical anastomosis was performed in 26 patients and intrathoracic anastomosis in 27 patients. No significant statistical difference in the frequency of anastomotic stenosis was observed between the two groups (p = 0.829); reflux esophagitis was noted in three patients in the cervical anastomosis group and in 14 patients in the intrathoracic anastomosis group (p = 0.041). For all patients, 23 received a hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomosis and 30 a circular stapled one. There was no significant statistical difference in anastomotic stenosis (p = 0.689) and reflux esophagitis (p = 0.879) in comparisons between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Cervical anastomosis resulted in a better outcome for esophagogastrostomy by lowering the risk of reflux esophagitis; this outcome might improve the patient's quality of life.
Authors: D Armstrong; J R Bennett; A L Blum; J Dent; F T De Dombal; J P Galmiche; L Lundell; M Margulies; J E Richter; S J Spechler; G N Tytgat; L Wallin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: P Trentino; E Pompeo; I Nofroni; F Francioni; S Rapacchietta; F Silvestri; M Carboni; T C Mineo Journal: Endoscopy Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: P Honkoop; P D Siersema; H W Tilanus; L P Stassen; W C Hop; M van Blankenstein Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Frans van Workum; Stefan A W Bouwense; Misha D P Luyer; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Donald L van der Peet; Freek Daams; Ewout A Kouwenhoven; Marc J van Det; Frits J H van den Wildenberg; Fatih Polat; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Joos Heisterkamp; Barbara S Langenhoff; Ingrid S Martijnse; Janneke P Grutters; Bastiaan R Klarenbeek; Maroeska M Rovers; Camiel Rosman Journal: Trials Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 2.279