Literature DB >> 21309918

Circular stapled pyloroplasty: a fast and effective technique for pyloric disruption during esophagectomy with gastric pull-up.

A Oezcelik1, S R DeMeester, K Hindoyan, J M Leers, S Ayazi, E Abate, J Zehetner, J A Hagen, J C Lipham, T R DeMeester.   

Abstract

The necessity of pyloroplasty after esophagectomy and gastric pull-up is debated. Disadvantages of a standard pyloroplasty include the potential for leak, shortening of the length of the graft, and complexity when done during a minimally invasive procedure. The aim of this study is to report our experience with a novel internal pyloroplasty technique using a circular stapler (CS pyloroplasty), which is applicable for both laparoscopic and open esophagectomy. The records of all patients who underwent an esophagectomy with gastric pull-up and pyloroplasty between 2002 and 2007 were reviewed. The CS pyloroplasty was performed through a lesser curve gastrotomy with a 21-mm CS, while the standard pyloroplasty entailed a longitudinal full thickness incision through the pylorus with mucosal closure in the same direction and a Graham patch. A CS pyloroplasty was performed in 144 and a standard pyloroplasty in 133 patients. The median patient age was 66years, and the median follow-up was 17months, and was similar for both types of pyloroplasty. Routine postoperative videoesophagram was significantly more likely to show a delay in contrast transit through the pylorus after standard pyloroplasty (16% standard vs. 8% CS pyloroplasty, P= 0.03). Significantly more patients had postoperative endoscopy after standard pyloroplasty (40% standard vs. 24% CS pyloroplasty, P= 0.004), but the frequency of pyloric dilatation was similar. There were no leaks with either technique. A circular stapled pyloroplasty is as efficacious as a standard pyloroplasty after esophagectomy with gastric pull-up. Potential advantages include the ease and simplicity of the procedure along with virtually no risk of a leak and no graft shortening. The technique is amenable to both open and minimally invasive procedures.
© 2011 Copyright the Authors. Journal compilation © 2011, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21309918     DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2010.01169.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Esophagus        ISSN: 1120-8694            Impact factor:   3.429


  3 in total

1.  Comparison of pyloric intervention strategies at the time of esophagectomy: is more better?

Authors:  Mara B Antonoff; Varun Puri; Bryan F Meyers; Kevin Baumgartner; Jennifer M Bell; Stephen Broderick; A Sasha Krupnick; Daniel Kreisel; G Alexander Patterson; Traves D Crabtree
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2014-04-21       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 2.  Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Esophagectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations.

Authors:  Donald E Low; William Allum; Giovanni De Manzoni; Lorenzo Ferri; Arul Immanuel; MadhanKumar Kuppusamy; Simon Law; Mats Lindblad; Nick Maynard; Joseph Neal; C S Pramesh; Mike Scott; B Mark Smithers; Valérie Addor; Olle Ljungqvist
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 3.  [Impact of perioperative nutritional therapy on risk and complication management in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer].

Authors:  A Weimann; I Gockel; A H Hölscher; H-J Meyer
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 0.955

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.