| Literature DB >> 31598372 |
Yuichi Takayama1, Yuji Kaneoka1, Atsuyuki Maeda1, Yasuyuki Fukami1, Takamasa Takahashi1, Masahito Uji1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The optimal method for intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy remains unclear because a purse-string suture for fixing the anvil into the esophagus is difficult to perform with a laparoscopic approach. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate our novel technique to fix the anvil into the esophagus.Entities:
Keywords: Anastomosis; Gastrectomy; Laparoscopy; Postoperative complications
Year: 2019 PMID: 31598372 PMCID: PMC6769370 DOI: 10.5230/jgc.2019.19.e26
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Gastric Cancer ISSN: 1598-1320 Impact factor: 3.720
Fig. 1Trocar placement. Infra-umbilical incision sites (12 mm) for the scope; right upper port (5 mm) for the instruments in the left hand of the operator; left upper port (5 mm) for the instruments in the right hand of the assistant; right lower port (12 mm) for the instruments in the right hand of the operator; and left lower port (5 mm) for the instruments in the left hand of the assistant. An aspiration tube was introduced through the 5 mm port on the right side of the umbilical port (5 mm) (arrow) for the aspirating tube in the right hand of the scopist.
Fig. 2Anvil fixation technique. (A) After incising 3/4 of the esophageal wall, a laparoscopic hand-sewn purse-string suturing was performed. (B) An anvil rim was introduced into the esophageal lumen by sliding on the posterior wall of the esophagus. (C) The purse-string suturing was ligated. (D) Kelly forceps were passed through the posterior wall of the esophagus to grasp the ligated thread. (E) The ligated thread was turned through the posterior wall of the esophagus. (F) The turned thread was ligated again. (G) The remnant esophageal wall was incised. (H) The anvil fixation was completed.
Characteristics of patients and tumors
| Characteristics | Total (n=202) | LATG (n=166) | LAPG (n=36) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (yr) | 65.4 (33–81) | 65.0 (33–81) | 67.6 (41–80) | |
| Sex (male/female) | 145/57 | 118/48 | 27/9 | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.0 (16.5–36.9) | 23.0 (16.5–36.9) | 23.0 (18.6–29.5) | |
| Comorbidity | 118 (58) | 97 (58) | 21 (58) | |
| Disease (cancer/others) | 200/2 | 166/0 | 34/2 | |
| pT | ||||
| T1 | 111 (56) | 83 (50) | 28 (82) | |
| T2 | 34 (17) | 30 (18) | 4 (12) | |
| T3 | 25 (13) | 24 (14) | 1 (2.9) | |
| T4 | 30 (15) | 29 (17) | 1 (2.9) | |
| pN | ||||
| N0 | 133 (67) | 103 (62) | 30 (88) | |
| N1 | 30 (15) | 28 (17) | 2 (5.9) | |
| N2 | 17 (8.5) | 15 (9.0) | 2 (5.9) | |
| N3 | 20 (10) | 20 (12) | 0 | |
| Stage | ||||
| IA | 101 (51) | 74 (45) | 27 (79) | |
| IB | 23 (12) | 21 (13) | 2 (5.9) | |
| IIA | 20 (10) | 18 (11) | 2 (5.9) | |
| IIB | 19 (9.5) | 16 (9.7) | 3 (8.8) | |
| IIIA | 15 (7.5) | 15 (9.0) | 0 | |
| IIIB | 11 (5.5) | 11 (6.6) | 0 | |
| IIIC | 11 (5.5) | 11 (6.6) | 0 | |
Data are shown as number of patients (%) or mean (range).
LATG = laparoscopy assisted total gastrectomy; LAPG = laparoscopy assisted proximal gastrectomy; BMI = body mass index.
Surgical outcomes
| Outcomes | Total (n=202) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Operation time (min) | 200.3 (117–377) | ||
| Blood loss (mL) | 53.2 (1–500) | ||
| No. of harvested lymph nodes | 30.8 (4–107) | ||
| Purse-string suture time (min) | 6.4 (2–37) | ||
| Conversion to open surgery | 2 (1.0) | ||
| Overall complications* | 52 (25.7) | ||
| Grade II | 7 | ||
| Grade IIIa | 24 | ||
| Grade IIIb | 20 | ||
| Grade IV | 1 | ||
| Complications at esophagojejunostomy site* | 16 (7.9) | ||
| Anastomotic leakage | 4 (2.0) | ||
| Grade IIIa | 3 | ||
| Grade IVa | 1 | ||
| Anastomotic stricture | 12 (5.9) | ||
| Grade IIIa | 12 | ||
| Mortality | 0 (0) | ||
| Postoperative hospital stays (day) | 15.6 (10–104) | ||
| Observational period (mo) | 16.7 (1–85.0) | ||
Data are shown as number of patients (%) or mean (range).
*Complications grade II and higher according to the Clavien–Dindo classification.
Literature review of anvil fixation technique for circular esophagojejunostomy
| Author | Year | No. | Method | Operation time (min) | Blood loss (mL) | Leakage (%) | Stenosis (%) | Observation period (mo) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wada et al. [ | 2014 | 100 | Endostich (Endoloop) | 249 | 182 | 5.0 | - | - |
| Lee et al. [ | 2013 | 99 | Endo-PSI | 250 | 215 | 4.2 | 2.5 | 38.2 |
| Liu et al. [ | 2017 | 41 | Endo-PSI | 245 | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| Kunisaki et al. [ | 2011 | 30 | OrVil (LS) | 209.8 | 111 | 3.3 | - | - |
| Ito et al. [ | 2014 | 117 | OrVil (LS) | 243 | 79 | 1.7 | 1.7 | - |
| Kawamura et al. [ | 2017 | 49 | OrVil (LS) | 259.3 | 53.3 | 4.1 | 4.1 | - |
| Sugiyama et al. [ | 2017 | 68 | Various methods* | 380.2 | 163.6 | 9.0 | - | - |
| Nunobe et al. [ | 2011 | 41 | Modified lift-up method (LS) | 298.6 | 85.9 | 4.9 | 7.3 | - |
| Kim et al. [ | 2013 | 36 | Handsewn (purse-string, 6 stiches) | 227.1 | 77.1 | 0 | - | 13.2 |
| Du et al. [ | 2014 | 52 | Handsewn (over and over) | 297.1 | 291.5 | 0 | 0 | 17 |
| Kosuga et al. [ | 2015 | 65 | Handsewn | 307.4 | 111.1 | 3.1 | 6.2 | - |
| Present study | 2018 | 200 | Handsewn (purse-string, 4 stitches) | 200.3 | 53.2 | 2.0 | 6.0 | 36 |
LS = linear stapler.
*OrVil (LS), modified lift-up method (LS), or Handsewn purse-string.
Fig. 3The schema of purse-string suturing for anvil fixation into the esophagus. (A) After incising 3/4 of the esophageal wall, a hand-sewn purse-string suturing was performed. (B) After ligation, the ligated thread was turned through the remnant posterior wall of the esophagus.