BACKGROUND: Due to the significant contribution of anastomotic leak, with its disastrous consequences to patient morbidity and mortality, multiple parameters have been proposed and individually meta-analyzed for the formation of the ideal esophagogastric anastomosis following cancer resection. The purpose of this pooled analysis was to examine the main technical parameters that impact on anastomotic integrity. METHODS: Medline, Embase, trial registries, and conference proceedings were searched. Technical factors evaluated included hand-sewn versus stapled esophagogastric anastomosis (EGA), cervical versus thoracic EGA, minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy, anterior versus posterior route of reconstruction and ischemic conditioning of the gastric conduit. The outcome of interest was the incidence of anastomotic leak, for which pooled odds ratios were calculated for each technical factor. RESULTS: No significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic leak was demonstrated for the following technical factors: hand-sewn versus stapled EGA, minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy, anterior versus posterior route of reconstruction and ischemic conditioning of the gastric conduit. Four randomized, controlled trials comprising 298 patients were included that compared cervical and thoracic EGA. Anastomotic leak was seen more commonly in the cervical group (13.64 %) than in the thoracic group (2.96 %). Pooled analysis demonstrated a significantly increased incidence of anastomotic leak in the cervical group (pooled odds ratio = 4.73; 95 % CI 1.61-13.9; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: A tailored surgical approach to the patient's physiology and esophageal cancer stage is the most important factor that influences anastomotic integrity after esophagectomy.
BACKGROUND: Due to the significant contribution of anastomotic leak, with its disastrous consequences to patient morbidity and mortality, multiple parameters have been proposed and individually meta-analyzed for the formation of the ideal esophagogastric anastomosis following cancer resection. The purpose of this pooled analysis was to examine the main technical parameters that impact on anastomotic integrity. METHODS: Medline, Embase, trial registries, and conference proceedings were searched. Technical factors evaluated included hand-sewn versus stapled esophagogastric anastomosis (EGA), cervical versus thoracic EGA, minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy, anterior versus posterior route of reconstruction and ischemic conditioning of the gastric conduit. The outcome of interest was the incidence of anastomotic leak, for which pooled odds ratios were calculated for each technical factor. RESULTS: No significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic leak was demonstrated for the following technical factors: hand-sewn versus stapled EGA, minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy, anterior versus posterior route of reconstruction and ischemic conditioning of the gastric conduit. Four randomized, controlled trials comprising 298 patients were included that compared cervical and thoracic EGA. Anastomotic leak was seen more commonly in the cervical group (13.64 %) than in the thoracic group (2.96 %). Pooled analysis demonstrated a significantly increased incidence of anastomotic leak in the cervical group (pooled odds ratio = 4.73; 95 % CI 1.61-13.9; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: A tailored surgical approach to the patient's physiology and esophageal cancer stage is the most important factor that influences anastomotic integrity after esophagectomy.
Authors: Patrick Heger; Susanne Blank; Markus K Diener; Alexis Ulrich; Thomas Schmidt; Markus W Büchler; André L Mihaljevic Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Hannes Köhler; Boris Jansen-Winkeln; Marianne Maktabi; Manuel Barberio; Jonathan Takoh; Nico Holfert; Yusef Moulla; Stefan Niebisch; Michele Diana; Thomas Neumuth; Sebastian M Rabe; Claire Chalopin; Andreas Melzer; Ines Gockel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Steve R Siegal; Abhishek D Parmar; Kelly R Haisley; Brandon H Tieu; Paul H Schipper; John G Hunter; James P Dolan Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 3.452