Literature DB >> 34790365

The comparisons of three stapler placement methods for intrathoracic mechanistic circular stapling in Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Bo Zhang1,2, Zixiang Wu1, Qi Wang1, Saibo Pan1, Lian Wang1, Gang Shen1, Huiping Chai3, Ming Wu1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To analyze the impact of the reversal penetrating technique (RPT) for intrathoracic gastroesophageal mechanical anastomosis on the development of anastomotic complications in Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy (ILMIE), and to further identify the risk factors for the development of anastomotic leakage and stricture.
METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted using the clinical data of 316 patients with esophageal carcinoma (EC) who underwent ILMIE from January 2012 to December 2019. The participants were divided into three groups, namely the RPT group, the transoral Orvil technique (TOT) group, and the purse-string technique (PST) group, according to the different stapler placement methods for intrathoracic mechanistic circular stapling. Multivariate analysis was performed to investigate the association of risk factors with anastomotic leakage and stricture.
RESULTS: There were 154 patients in the RPT group, 78 in the TOT group, and 84 in the PST group for intrathoracic gastroesophageal circular stapling in ILMIE. There were no differences in intraoperative anastomosis-related conditions including conversion of open operations, and lymph nodes harvested between the three groups. However, the mean total operative time and gastroesophageal anastomosis time in the RPT group were significantly shorter than those in the other groups (both P<0.05). The rates of anastomotic leakage and stricture showed no statistical differences between the three groups (leakage: P=0.875; stricture: P=0.942). Multivariate analysis revealed that the RPT method of anvil placement did not increase the probability of anastomotic leakage [RPT: reference; TOT: odds ratio (OR) 0.422, P=0.341; PST: OR 1.436, P=0.645] and stricture (RPT: reference; TOT: OR 0.579, P=0.376; PST: OR 1.195, P=0.755).
CONCLUSIONS: The RPT method of anvil placement for intrathoracic gastroesophageal circular stapling does not increase the risk of anastomotic complications in ILMIE, but had significantly shorter surgical time and anastomosis time. 2021 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Esophageal carcinoma (EC); Ivor Lewis esophagectomy; minimally invasive esophagectomy; reversal penetrating technique (RPT)

Year:  2021        PMID: 34790365      PMCID: PMC8576206          DOI: 10.21037/jgo-21-322

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol        ISSN: 2078-6891


  26 in total

1.  Reverse-Puncture Anastomotic Technique for Minimally Invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy.

Authors:  Ping Xiao; Xiang Zhuang; Yi Shen; Qiang Li; Wei Dai; Xiao-Jun Yang; Tian-Peng Xie; Guang-Yuan Liu
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.330

2.  Pursestring stapled anastomotic technique for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Authors:  Ren-Quan Zhang; Wan-Li Xia; Ning-Ning Kang; Wei Ge; An-Guo Chen; Ke-Chao Zhu
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Use of efficient purse-string stapling technique for esophagogastric anastomosis in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Authors:  Gang Shen; Sai-Bo Pan; Ming Wu; Sai Zhang; Xiao-Fang Xu; Gang Chen
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Esophagogastric Anastomosis Using the Transoral Orvil for the End-to-Side Ivor-Lewis Technique.

Authors:  Bernadette U Laxa; Kristi L Harold; Dawn E Jaroszewski
Journal:  Innovations (Phila)       Date:  2009-11

5.  Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Surya S A Y Biere; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Kirsten W Maas; Luigi Bonavina; Camiel Rosman; Josep Roig Garcia; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Markus W Hollmann; Elly S M de Lange; H Jaap Bonjer; Donald L van der Peet; Miguel A Cuesta
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 6.  Transhiatal versus Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy: is there a difference?

Authors:  R Rindani; C J Martin; M R Cox
Journal:  Aust N Z J Surg       Date:  1999-03

7.  Subtotal esophagectomy with extended 2-field lymph node dissection for thoracic esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Ivan Stilidi; Michail Davydov; Vahan Bokhyan; Elkhan Suleymanov
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.191

Review 8.  Reducing hospital morbidity and mortality following esophagectomy.

Authors:  B Zane Atkins; Ashish S Shah; Kelley A Hutcheson; Jennifer H Mangum; Theodore N Pappas; David H Harpole; Thomas A D'Amico
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.330

9.  Modified reverse-puncture anastomotic technique vs. traditional technique for total minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.

Authors:  Xiaokang Shen; Tianming Chen; Xiaoming Shi; Ming Zheng; Zhang Yan Zhou; Hai Tao Qiu; Jiawei Zhao; Peng Lu; Po Yang; Shilin Chen
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 2.754

10.  Long-term quality of life after endovac-therapy in anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy.

Authors:  Nils Heits; Alexander Bernsmeier; Benedikt Reichert; Charlotte Hauser; Alexander Hendricks; Dana Seifert; Florian Richter; Clemens Schafmayer; Mark Ellrichmann; Bodo Schniewind; Jochen Hampe; Thomas Becker; Jan-Hendrik Egberts
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.895

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.