BACKGROUND: This study was performed to verify the superiority of a new "non-tensioning method" for avoiding stricture of the cervical esophagogastric anastomosis by circular stapling compared with the conventional method. METHODS: In total, 395 consecutive patients who underwent McKeown esophagectomy with gastric conduit (GC) reconstruction were reviewed. A 4 cm-wide GC was created and pulled up at the cervical site through the retrosternal route. The esophagogastrostomy site of the GC was planned as far caudally as possible on the greater curvature side. In the conventional technique, the stapler was fired while pulling the GC to avoid tissue slack. In the non-tensioning technique, the stapler was fired through the natural thickness of the stomach wall. The length of the blind end was changed from 4 to 2 cm in the non-tensioning technique. Anastomotic leakage and stricture formation were compared between the two techniques, and adjustment was performed using propensity score matching. RESULTS: The conventional group comprised 315 patients, and the non-tensioning group comprised 80 patients. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 22 (7%) and 2 (2.5%) patients, respectively (P = 0.134) [and in 9 (2.9%) and 2 (2.5%) patients, respectively, if leakage at the blind end was excluded]. Anastomotic stricture occurred in 92 (29.2%) and 3 (3.8%) patients, respectively (P < 0.001). The propensity score-matching analysis including 79 pairs of patients confirmed a lower stricture rate in the non-tensioning than conventional group (2.5% vs. 29.1%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The non-tensioning technique significantly reduced the incidence of anastomotic stricture compared with the conventional technique.
BACKGROUND: This study was performed to verify the superiority of a new "non-tensioning method" for avoiding stricture of the cervical esophagogastric anastomosis by circular stapling compared with the conventional method. METHODS: In total, 395 consecutive patients who underwent McKeown esophagectomy with gastric conduit (GC) reconstruction were reviewed. A 4 cm-wide GC was created and pulled up at the cervical site through the retrosternal route. The esophagogastrostomy site of the GC was planned as far caudally as possible on the greater curvature side. In the conventional technique, the stapler was fired while pulling the GC to avoid tissue slack. In the non-tensioning technique, the stapler was fired through the natural thickness of the stomach wall. The length of the blind end was changed from 4 to 2 cm in the non-tensioning technique. Anastomotic leakage and stricture formation were compared between the two techniques, and adjustment was performed using propensity score matching. RESULTS: The conventional group comprised 315 patients, and the non-tensioning group comprised 80 patients. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 22 (7%) and 2 (2.5%) patients, respectively (P = 0.134) [and in 9 (2.9%) and 2 (2.5%) patients, respectively, if leakage at the blind end was excluded]. Anastomotic stricture occurred in 92 (29.2%) and 3 (3.8%) patients, respectively (P < 0.001). The propensity score-matching analysis including 79 pairs of patients confirmed a lower stricture rate in the non-tensioning than conventional group (2.5% vs. 29.1%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The non-tensioning technique significantly reduced the incidence of anastomotic stricture compared with the conventional technique.