| Literature DB >> 33850855 |
Xiao-Kun Li1, Tian-Tian Hua2, Chi Zhang3, Yang Xu4, Wen-Jie Wu5, Chao Zheng1, Gao-Ming Wang3, Yong Qiang1, Zhuang-Zhuang Cong3, Jun Yi1,3,4, Yi Shen1,3,4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Esophagogastric anastomotic leak (AL) is a severe complication following esophageal resection. This study aims to explore preliminarily whether the ratio of the gastric conduit length to the thorax length can be regarded as a potential prognostic variable for AL, and if so, a cut-off value can be found to divide the patients into distinct risk groups.Entities:
Keywords: Esophagectomy; anastomotic leak; dichotomization; ratio of gastric conduit length to thorax length
Year: 2021 PMID: 33850855 PMCID: PMC8039640 DOI: 10.21037/atm-20-6082
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
Video 1The procedure of hand-sewn anastomosis.
Figure 1The measurement of gastric tube length and thorax length. (A) The horizontal length of thorax was defined to start at the xiphoid and end at the sternal notch. (B) Measure the lateral length from the incision level to the tip of the conduit. (C) Fix the incision part of the conduit and measure the lateral length from pylorus ring to the incision level. The original gastric conduit length is equal to the sum of the two aforementioned lengths. (D) Measure the length of the resection part that starts from the anastomosis and ends at the tip of the conduit. The gastric conduit length is equal to the original gastric conduit length minus the resection length.
The contingency table of every alternative cut-off point
| With AL | a | b |
| Without AL | c | d |
Patient clinicopathologic characteristics
| Characteristics | No. of patients (n, %) or mean ± SD |
|---|---|
| Age(years) | 64.41±8.76 |
| Gender | |
| Male | 214 (78.4) |
| Female | 59 (21.6) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.94±3.18 |
| Diabetes | 20 (7.3) |
| Hypertension | 62 (22.7) |
| Smoking history | 138 (50.5) |
| Drinking history | 89 (32.6) |
| Pulmonary complication | 24 (8.8) |
| Cardiovascular complication | 86 (31.5) |
| ASA score | |
| I | 187 (68.5) |
| II | 72 (26.4) |
| III | 14 (5.1) |
| Histological type | |
| SCC | 256 (93.8) |
| AC | 2 (0.7) |
| ASC | 2 (0.7) |
| Others | 13 (4.8) |
| Pathologic tumor stage | |
| I | 104 (38.1) |
| II | 62 (22.7) |
| III | 99 (36.3) |
| IV | 8 (2.9) |
| Differentiation degree | |
| Well | 71 (26.0) |
| Moderate | 158 (57.9) |
| Poor | 44 (16.1) |
| Preoperative adjuvant therapy | 45 (16.5) |
BMI, body mass index; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; AC, adenocarcinoma; ASC, adeno-squamous carcinoma
Clinicopathologic findings according to presence or absence of AL
| Variables | AL (−) (n=239) (n, %) | AL (+) (n=34) (n, %) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor size | 0.8 | ||
| <3 cm | 111 (46.4) | 15 (44.1) | |
| ≥3 cm | 128 (53.6) | 19 (55.9) | |
| Tumor location | 0.34 | ||
| Upper | 19 (8.0) | 1 (2.9) | |
| Meddle | 140 (58.6) | 24 (70.6) | |
| Lower | 80 (33.4) | 9 (26.5) | |
| Operation type | 0.006 | ||
| Open operation | 128 (53.6) | 9 (26.5) | |
| VATS | 77 (32.2) | 20 (58.8) | |
| RATS | 34 (14.2) | 5 (14.7) | |
| Operation hour | 0.022 | ||
| <4 hour | 141 (59.0) | 13 (38.2) | |
| ≥4 hour | 98 (41.0) | 21 (61.8) | |
| Differentiation degree | 0.88 | ||
| Well | 61 (25.5) | 10 (29.4) | |
| Moderate | 139 (58.2) | 19 (55.9) | |
| Poor | 39 (16.3) | 5 (14.7) | |
| TNM stage | 0.041 | ||
| Stage I | 90 (37.7) | 14 (41.2) | |
| Stage II | 59 (24.7) | 3 (8.8) | |
| Stage III | 85 (35.6) | 14 (41.2) | |
| Stage IV | 5 (2.0) | 3 (8.8) | |
| Ratio | <0.001 | ||
| <1.79 | 27 (11.3) | 23 (67.6) | |
| ≥1.79 | 212 (88.7) | 11 (32.4) | |
| CRP | <0.001 | ||
| <73.0 | 179 (74.9) | 1 (2.9) | |
| ≥73.0 | 60 (25.1) | 33 (97.1) | |
Figure 2There are different routes by which to trim the stomach during the reconstruction of the gastric tract, which influence the gastric conduit length. The tension in the anastomosis can then be represented alternatively by the ratio of the gastric conduit length to the thorax length. The bigger the ratio is, the smaller the risk of AL will be. Therefore, surgeons can properly increase the gastric conduit length according to the patient’s thorax length during the reconstruction of the gastric tract, reducing the tension in the anastomosis and finally leading to a decrease in AL incidence.
Backward stepwise selection result (AIC: 99.26)
| Covariate name | Coefficient | Standard error | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ratio | −7.751 | 1.840 | <0.001 |
| Operative type | |||
| Open operation | Reference | ||
| VATS | 2.052 | 1.091 | 0.060 |
| RATS | 0.054 | 0.681 | 0.936 |
| Operative hour | 1.12 | 0.374 | 0.003 |
| CRP | 0.022 | 0.004 | <0.001 |
AIC, Akaike information criterion; VATS, video-assisted thoracic surgery; RATS, robot-assisted thoracic surgery; CRP, C-reactive protein.
Force-enter selection result (AIC: 106.76)
| Covariate name | Coefficient | Standard error | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ratio | −7.939 | 2.019 | <0.001 |
| Operative type | |||
| Open operation | Reference | ||
| VATS | 2.337 | 1.177 | 0.047 |
| RATS | 0.278 | 0.763 | 0.725 |
| Operative hour | 1.233 | 0.424 | 0.004 |
| Differentiation degree | |||
| Well | Reference | ||
| Moderate | 1.08 | 0.857 | 0.208 |
| Poor | 1.073 | 1.040 | 0.302 |
| TNM stage | |||
| I | Reference | ||
| II | −0.422 | 0.942 | 0.654 |
| III | −0.172 | 0.721 | 0.812 |
| IV | 2.201 | 1.228 | 0.073 |
| Tumor location | |||
| Upper | Reference | ||
| Middle | −1.015 | 1.343 | 0.45 |
| Lower | −1.805 | 1.486 | 0.225 |
| CRP | 0.025 | 0.005 | <0.001 |
AIC, Akaike information criterion; VATS, video-assisted thoracic surgery; RATS, robot-assisted thoracic surgery; TNM, tumor, node, metastasis; CRP, C-reactive protein.
Figure 3Scatter plot of ratio in an AL condition. shows the ratios (the gastric conduit length divided by the thorax length) and the AL (anastomotic leak) conditions (with or without AL) of all 273 subjects. Each point represents a specific subject with the x-axis standing for the ratio and the y-axis standing for the AL condition. Subjects who suffer from AL tend to have a smaller ratio, whereas those without AL feature a larger ratio, which is indicated by the transparency of the points.
Figure 4Grouped data plot of the ratio in an AL condition. is a preliminarily smoothed version on the base of the scatter plot in . All 273 points are divided equally into 10 bins, according to the ratio. Within each group, the arithmetic mean and the standard deviation of the ratio are then calculated and labeled (e.g., x: 1.530±0.025), as well as those of the AL condition (e.g., y: 0.500±0.577). The steepest sector can be found on the line chart to form an interval where the potential dichotomization point will be sought exactly, later.
Minimum P value approach search result
| Alternative ratio | Chi-squares | P value |
|---|---|---|
| 1.74 | 30.912 | 2.700×10−8 |
| 1.75 | 29.444 | 5.757×10−8 |
| 1.76 | 31.078 | 2.479×10−8 |
| 1.77 | 35.904 | 2.073×10−9 |
| 1.78 | 48.892 | 2.704×10−12 |
| 1.79 | 59.466 | 1.245×10−14 |
| 1.80 | 54.283 | 1.736×10−13 |
| 1.81 | 48.238 | 3.776×10−12 |
| 1.82 | 48.238 | 3.776×10−12 |
| 1.83 | 50.329 | 1.301×10−12 |
| 1.84 | 46.376 | 9.760×10−12 |
| 1.85 | 48.576 | 3.178×10−12 |
| 1.86 | 46.161 | 1.089×10−11 |
| 1.87 | 47.292 | 6.117×10−12 |
| 1.88 | 41.997 | 9.141×10−11 |
| 1.89 | 41.021 | 1.506×10−10 |
| 1.90 | 37.363 | 9.807×10−10 |
Three corrections for the unadjusted P value
| Unadjusted | Altman | Standard Bonferroni | Lausen & Schumaker |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.245×10-14 | 1.506×10-12 | 2.116×10-13 | 1.359×10-13 |