Xu-Feng Deng1, Quan-Xing Liu1, Dong Zhou1, Jia-Xin Min1, Ji-Gang Dai1. 1. Xu-Feng Deng, Quan-Xing Liu, Dong Zhou, Jia-Xin Min, Ji-Gang Dai, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Xinqiao Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400037, China.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the outcomes of hand-sewn (HS) and linearly stapled (LS) esophagogastric anastomosis for esophageal cancer. METHODS: Before beginning this study, a rigorous protocol was established according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. Databases and references were searched for all randomized controlled trials and comparative clinical studies that compared LS with HS esophagogastric anastomosis for esophageal cancer. The primary outcomes compared were anastomotic leak and stricture. Subgroup analyses were performed according to site of anastomosis. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were used, comprising 3203 patients (n = 2027 LS and 1176 HS). Primary outcome analysis revealed a significant decrease in anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.41-0.65; P < 0.00001) associated with LS anastomosis. A significantly reduced rate of anastomotic stricture associated with LS was also found (RR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.49-0.64; P < 0.00001). A subgroup analysis according to the site of anastomosis revealed a significantly reduced rate of anastomotic stricture (P < 0.00001). Although there was no significant difference in the decrease in thoracic anastomotic leakage, there was a significant decrease in cervical anastomotic leakage associated with LS (P < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that the LS technique contributes to a reduced rate of leakage and stricture compared with the HS method.
AIM: To compare the outcomes of hand-sewn (HS) and linearly stapled (LS) esophagogastric anastomosis for esophageal cancer. METHODS: Before beginning this study, a rigorous protocol was established according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. Databases and references were searched for all randomized controlled trials and comparative clinical studies that compared LS with HS esophagogastric anastomosis for esophageal cancer. The primary outcomes compared were anastomotic leak and stricture. Subgroup analyses were performed according to site of anastomosis. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were used, comprising 3203 patients (n = 2027 LS and 1176 HS). Primary outcome analysis revealed a significant decrease in anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.41-0.65; P < 0.00001) associated with LS anastomosis. A significantly reduced rate of anastomotic stricture associated with LS was also found (RR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.49-0.64; P < 0.00001). A subgroup analysis according to the site of anastomosis revealed a significantly reduced rate of anastomotic stricture (P < 0.00001). Although there was no significant difference in the decrease in thoracic anastomotic leakage, there was a significant decrease in cervical anastomotic leakage associated with LS (P < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that the LS technique contributes to a reduced rate of leakage and stricture compared with the HS method.
Authors: Sina Ercan; Thomas W Rice; Sudish C Murthy; Lisa A Rybicki; Eugene H Blackstone Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Bruno Walther; Jan Johansson; Folke Johnsson; Christer Staël Von Holstein; Thomas Zilling Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sami A Chadi; Abe Fingerhut; Mariana Berho; Steven R DeMeester; James W Fleshman; Neil H Hyman; David A Margolin; Joseph E Martz; Elisabeth C McLemore; Daniela Molena; Martin I Newman; Janice F Rafferty; Bashar Safar; Anthony J Senagore; Oded Zmora; Steven D Wexner Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Kevin J Walsh; Hao Zhang; Kay See Tan; Alessia Pedoto; Dawn P Desiderio; Gregory W Fischer; Manjit S Bains; David R Jones; Daniela Molena; David Amar Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: Zuhair Ahmed; Jessie A Elliott; Sinead King; Claire L Donohoe; Narayanasamy Ravi; John V Reynolds Journal: World J Surg Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 3.352