| Literature DB >> 32736599 |
Seyed Ziaeddin Rasihashemi1, Ali Ramouz2, Samad Beheshtirouy1, Hassan Amini3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversies in terms of efficacy and postoperative advantages surround stapled esophagogastric anastomosis compared with the hand-sewn technique as a treatment for patients with esophageal cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of hand-sewn end-to-side esophago-gastrostomy and side-to-side stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy for the aforementioned patients.Entities:
Keywords: Anastomotic leakage; Anastomotic stricture; End-to-side hand-sewn anastomosis; Esophageal cancer; Side-to-side stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32736599 PMCID: PMC7393709 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-020-01393-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Gastroenterol ISSN: 1471-230X Impact factor: 3.067
Fig. 1a: The posterior wall of esophagus and the posterior wall of gastric conduit aligned and two stay sutures applied. b: The posterior wall of the anastomosis constructed by using an Endo GIA™ loaded with 60 blue cartridge fired vertically. c and d: The lateral sides of anastomosis pulled up by two backups and a 60-mm linear stapler (Endo-GIA60–3; Covidien) fired horizontally to close the anterior wall of the anastomosis
Patients’ demographic data and preoperative symptoms
| Anastomosis type | Hand-sewn | Stapled anastomosis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Female | 85 (31.36%) | 100 (61.72%) | 0.08 |
| Male | 186 (68.64%) | 62 (38.28%) | ||
| Age (year) | 65.44 ± 19.11 | 62.62 ± 20.19 | 0.338 | |
| Preoperative complaints | Dysphagia | 271 (100%) | 162 (100%) | 1 |
| Heart burn | 130 (47.97%) | 87 (53.7%) | 0.24 | |
| Weight loss | 100 (36.9%) | 54 (33.33%) | 0.45 | |
| Odynophagia | 75 (27.67%) | 68 (41.97%) | 0.482 | |
| Tumor type | SCC | 250 (92.25%) | 135 (83.33%) | 0.004 |
| Adenocarcinoma | 21 (7.74%) | 27 (16.66%) | ||
| Stage of tumor | 1 | 54 (19.92%) | 19 (11.72%) | 0.01 |
| 2 | 140 (51.66%) | 78 (48.14%) | ||
| 3 | 77 (28.41%) | 65 (40.12%) | ||
Patients’ demographic data and preoperative symptoms patients underwent hand-sewn and stapled anastomosis groups
Patients’ postoperative findings
| Anastomosis type | Hand-sewn | Stapled anastomosis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operation time (minute) | 250.55 ± 43.31 | 214.46 ± 84.33 | 0.028 | |
| Morbidity | Anastomotic leakage | 38 (14.02%) | 8 (4.93%) | 0.002 |
| Minor | 37 (13.6%) | 7 (4.32%) | ||
| Major | 1 (0.32%) | 1 (0.61%) | ||
| Pneumonia | 20 (7.38%) | 15 (9.25%) | 0.1 | |
| Pleural effusion | 21 (7.74%) | 11 (6.79%) | 0.63 | |
| Pneumothorax | 13 (4.79%) | 7 (4.32%) | 0.81 | |
| Chylothorax | 5 (1.84%) | 4 (2.46%) | 0.23 | |
| ARDS | 3 (1.1%) | 0 | 0.24 | |
| RLN injury | 4 (1.47%) | 1 (0.61%) | 0.38 | |
| Arrhythmia | 9 (3.32%) | 11 (6.79%) | 0.07 | |
| Wound infection | 5 (1.84%) | 3 (1.85%) | 0.63 | |
| Others | 13 (4.79%) | 12 (7.4%) | 0.054 | |
| Mortality | Hospital mortality | 7 (2.58%) | 4 (2.46%) | 0.60 |
| 30-day mortality | 1 (0.36%) | 1 (0.61%) | 0.57 | |
| 90-day mortality | 2 (0.73%) | 0 | 0.48 | |
| Hospital stay (Days) | 19.5 + 7.2 | 18.5 + 7.7 | 0.17 | |
| ICU stay (Days) | 9.7 + 7.5 | 9.1 + 7.2 | 0.42 | |
| Malignant anastomotic Stricture | 3 (1.1%) | 2 (1.23%) | 0.61 | |
| Pathologic positive margin | 2 (0.73%) | 2 (1.23%) | 0.48 | |
| Reoperation | Chylothorax | 1 (0.36%) | 2 (1.23%) | 0.31 |
| Tracheal injury | 2 (0.73%) | 0 | 0.39 | |
| Conduit necrosis | 1 (0.36%) | 1 (0.61%) | 0.60 | |
| Non anastomotic leak | 0 | 2 (1.23%) | 0.13 | |
Patients’ postoperative outcomes in hand-sewn and stapled anastomosis groups
Fig. 2Prevalence pattern of reflux symptoms in hand-sewn and stapled anastomosis groups in over the 12-month follow-up period
Prevalence pattern of anastomotic stricture
| Anastomosis stricture | Status | Two weeks | 4 Month | 8 Month | 12 Month | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anastomosis technique | Hand-sewn | Present | 0 (0%) | 28 (10.8%) | 37 (14.2%) | 23 (8.8%) | 0.004 |
| Not present | 0 (0%) | 231 (89.2%) | 222 (85.8%) | 236 (91.2%) | |||
| McNemar | Base | 0.008 | 0.083 | 0.083 | |||
| Stapled anastomosis | Present | 0 (0%) | 9 (6%) | 8 (5.3%) | 4 (2.6%) | 0.263 | |
| Not present | 0 (0%) | 141 (94%) | 142 (94.7%) | 146 (97.4%) | |||
| McNemar | Base | 0.005 | 0.083 | 0.046 | |||
| Statistical Tests | Chi-Square | 1 | 0.07 | 0.003 | 0.01 | ||
| Mixed Model | Pv Group = 0.029, Pv Time = 0.235 | ||||||
*Cochran’s Q Test
Prevalence pattern of anastomotic stricture in patients underwent hand-sewn and stapled anastomosis groups
Prevalence pattern of intervention for anastomotic dilatation
| Need for dilatation | Status | 4 Month | 8 Month | 12 Month | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anastomosis technique | Hand-sewn | Present | 12 (4.6%) | 13 (5%) | 16 (6.1%) | 0.048 |
| Not present | 247 (95.4%) | 246 (95%) | 243 (93.9%) | |||
| McNemar | Base | 0.893 | 0.317 | |||
| Stapled anastomosis | Present | 4 (2.6%) | 11 (7.3%) | 3 (2%) | 0.273 | |
| Not present | 146 (97.4%) | 139 (92.7%) | 147 (98%) | |||
| McNemar | Base | 0.564 | 0.157 | |||
| Statistical Tests | Chi-Square | 0.239 | 0.227 | 0.04 | ||
| Mixed Model | Pv Group = 0.021, Pv Time = 0.473 | |||||
*Cochran’s Q Test
Prevalence pattern of intervention for anastomotic dilatation in patients underwent hand-sewn and stapled anastomosis groups