BACKGROUND: Successful anastomosis is essential in esophagogastrectomy, and the application of the circular stapler effectively reduces the anastomotic leakage, although stricture formation has become more frequent. The present study, a randomized controlled trial, compared the recently developed semi-mechanical anastomosis with a hand-sewn or circular stapled esophagogastrostomy in prevention of anastomotic stricture. METHODS:Between November 2007 and September 2008, 160 consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma underwent surgical treatment our department. Five patients were excluded from this study, and the remaining 155 patients were completely randomized to receive either an everted plus side extension esophagogastrostomy (semi-mechanical [SM] group) or a conventional hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomosis ([HS] group) or a circular stapled ([CS] group) esophagogastric anastomosis, after dissection of the esophageal tumor and construction of a tubular stomach. The primary outcome was the incidence of an anastomotic stricture at 3 months after the operation (defined as the diameter of the anastomotic orifice ≤ 0.8 cm on esophagogram). Secondary outcomes were the dysphagia score and reflux score, as well as the anastomotic diameter. RESULTS: The anastomotic stricture rate was 0 % (0/45) in the SM group, 9.6 % (5/52) in the HS group, and 19.1 % (9/47) in the CS group (p < 0.001). The mean diameter of the anastomotic orifice was 18.2 ± 4.7 mm in the SM group, 11.5 ± 2.4 mm in the HS group, and 9.5 ± 3.0 mm in the CS group (p < 0.001). The reflux/regurgitation score among the three groups was similar. CONCLUSIONS:Semi-mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis could prevent stricture formation more effectively than hand-sewn or circular stapler esophagogastrostomy, without increasing gastroesophageal reflux.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Successful anastomosis is essential in esophagogastrectomy, and the application of the circular stapler effectively reduces the anastomotic leakage, although stricture formation has become more frequent. The present study, a randomized controlled trial, compared the recently developed semi-mechanical anastomosis with a hand-sewn or circular stapled esophagogastrostomy in prevention of anastomotic stricture. METHODS: Between November 2007 and September 2008, 160 consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma underwent surgical treatment our department. Five patients were excluded from this study, and the remaining 155 patients were completely randomized to receive either an everted plus side extension esophagogastrostomy (semi-mechanical [SM] group) or a conventional hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomosis ([HS] group) or a circular stapled ([CS] group) esophagogastric anastomosis, after dissection of the esophageal tumor and construction of a tubular stomach. The primary outcome was the incidence of an anastomotic stricture at 3 months after the operation (defined as the diameter of the anastomotic orifice ≤ 0.8 cm on esophagogram). Secondary outcomes were the dysphagia score and reflux score, as well as the anastomotic diameter. RESULTS: The anastomotic stricture rate was 0 % (0/45) in the SM group, 9.6 % (5/52) in the HS group, and 19.1 % (9/47) in the CS group (p < 0.001). The mean diameter of the anastomotic orifice was 18.2 ± 4.7 mm in the SM group, 11.5 ± 2.4 mm in the HS group, and 9.5 ± 3.0 mm in the CS group (p < 0.001). The reflux/regurgitation score among the three groups was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Semi-mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis could prevent stricture formation more effectively than hand-sewn or circular stapler esophagogastrostomy, without increasing gastroesophageal reflux.
Authors: G Petrin; A Ruol; G Battaglia; F Buin; S Merigliano; M Constantini; P Pavei; M Cagol; S Scappin; E Ancona Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Abdollah Behzadi; Francis C Nichols; Stephen D Cassivi; Claude Deschamps; Mark S Allen; Peter C Pairolero Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Fady Yanni; Pritam Singh; Nilanjana Tewari; Simon L Parsons; James A Catton; John Duffy; Neil T Welch; Ravinder S Vohra Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.352