Hai-Bo Sun1, Yin Li2, Xian-Ben Liu1, Rui-Xiang Zhang1, Zong-Fei Wang1, Yan Zheng1, Jian-Jun Qin1, Hao-Miao Li1, Xian-Kai Chen1, Zhao Wu1. 1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Henan Cancer Hospital, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China. 2. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Henan Cancer Hospital, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China. Electronic address: liyin0825@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There exists great controversy regarding the use of esophagogastric anastomotic techniques in the treatment of esophageal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare two types of cervical esophagogastric anastomoses with respect to the reduction of postoperative anastomotic leaks, stenosis, and gastroesophageal reflux. METHODS: From June 2010 to September 2013, 339 patients who underwent two different cervical esophagogastric anastomotic procedures after thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were identified. RESULTS: A total of 166 patients with esophageal cancer were treated using an embedded three-layer anastomosis (embedded group), and 173 were treated using a conventional two-layer anastomosis (conventional group). The rates of anastomotic leak (2.4% [4 of 166] versus 7.5% [13 of 173], p = 0.031) and benign anastomotic stricture (4.8% [8 of 166] versus 12.7% [22 of 173], p = 0.010) were significantly lower in the embedded group compared with the conventional group. The mean reflux scores were significantly higher among the patients in the conventional group compared with the patients in the embedded group at 1 month (25.2 versus 19.0, p = 0.001), 3 months (27.8 versus 21.4, p = 0.001), and 6 months (23.4 versus 17.8, p < 0.001) of follow-up. The mean scores for dysphagia were significantly lower among the patients in the embedded group compared with the patients in the conventional group at both 3 months (22.7 versus 29.8, p = 0.012) and 6 months (16.0 versus 21.3, p = 0.008) of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The new embedded three-layer esophagogastric anastomosis offers several advantages and reduces the incidence of postoperative complications such as anastomotic leak, stricture, and gastroesophageal reflux.
BACKGROUND: There exists great controversy regarding the use of esophagogastric anastomotic techniques in the treatment of esophageal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare two types of cervical esophagogastric anastomoses with respect to the reduction of postoperative anastomotic leaks, stenosis, and gastroesophageal reflux. METHODS: From June 2010 to September 2013, 339 patients who underwent two different cervical esophagogastric anastomotic procedures after thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were identified. RESULTS: A total of 166 patients with esophageal cancer were treated using an embedded three-layer anastomosis (embedded group), and 173 were treated using a conventional two-layer anastomosis (conventional group). The rates of anastomotic leak (2.4% [4 of 166] versus 7.5% [13 of 173], p = 0.031) and benign anastomotic stricture (4.8% [8 of 166] versus 12.7% [22 of 173], p = 0.010) were significantly lower in the embedded group compared with the conventional group. The mean reflux scores were significantly higher among the patients in the conventional group compared with the patients in the embedded group at 1 month (25.2 versus 19.0, p = 0.001), 3 months (27.8 versus 21.4, p = 0.001), and 6 months (23.4 versus 17.8, p < 0.001) of follow-up. The mean scores for dysphagia were significantly lower among the patients in the embedded group compared with the patients in the conventional group at both 3 months (22.7 versus 29.8, p = 0.012) and 6 months (16.0 versus 21.3, p = 0.008) of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The new embedded three-layer esophagogastric anastomosis offers several advantages and reduces the incidence of postoperative complications such as anastomotic leak, stricture, and gastroesophageal reflux.