Alberto Aiolfi1,2,3, Andrea Sozzi4,5,6, Gianluca Bonitta4,5,6, Francesca Lombardo4,5,6, Marta Cavalli4,5,6, Silvia Cirri4,5,6, Giampiero Campanelli4,5,6, Piergiorgio Danelli4,5,6, Davide Bona4,5,6. 1. I.R.C.C.S. Ospedale Galeazzi - Sant'Ambrogio, Division of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Science for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. alberto.aiolfi86@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Istituto Clinico Sant'Ambrogio, University of Insubria, Via Luigi Giuseppe Faravelli, 16, 20149, Milan, Italy. alberto.aiolfi86@gmail.com. 3. Department of General Surgery, Luigi Sacco University Hospital, Milan, Italy. alberto.aiolfi86@gmail.com. 4. I.R.C.C.S. Ospedale Galeazzi - Sant'Ambrogio, Division of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Science for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Surgery, Istituto Clinico Sant'Ambrogio, University of Insubria, Via Luigi Giuseppe Faravelli, 16, 20149, Milan, Italy. 6. Department of General Surgery, Luigi Sacco University Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different techniques have been described for esophagogastric anastomosis. Over the past decades, surgeons have been improving anastomotic techniques with a gradual shift from hand-sewn to stapled anastomosis. Nowadays, circular-stapled (CS) and linear-stapled (LS) anastomosis are commonly used during esophagectomy. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to June 2022. The included studies evaluated short-term outcomes for LS vs. CS anastomosis in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer. Primary outcomes were anastomotic leak (AL) and stricture (AS). Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as pooled effect size measures whereas 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were used to assess relative inference. RESULTS: Eighteen studies (2861 patients) were included. Overall, 1371 (47.9%) underwent CS while 1490 (52.1%) LS. Compared to CS, LS was associated with a significantly reduced RR for AL (RR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.54-0.91; p < 0.01) and AS (RR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.20-0.51; p < 0.0001). Stratified subgroup analysis according to the level of anastomosis (cervical and thoracic) still shows a tendency toward reduced risk for LS. No differences were found for pneumonia (RR 0.78; p = 0.12), reflux esophagitis (RR 0.74; p = 0.36), operative time (SMD -0.25; p = 0.16), hospital length of stay (SMD 0.13; p = 0.51), and 30-day mortality (RR 1.26; p = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: LS anastomosis seems associated with a tendency toward a reduced risk for AL and AS. Although surgeon's own training and experience might direct the choice of esophagogastric anastomosis, our meta-analysis encourages the use of LS anastomosis.
BACKGROUND: Different techniques have been described for esophagogastric anastomosis. Over the past decades, surgeons have been improving anastomotic techniques with a gradual shift from hand-sewn to stapled anastomosis. Nowadays, circular-stapled (CS) and linear-stapled (LS) anastomosis are commonly used during esophagectomy. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to June 2022. The included studies evaluated short-term outcomes for LS vs. CS anastomosis in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer. Primary outcomes were anastomotic leak (AL) and stricture (AS). Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as pooled effect size measures whereas 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were used to assess relative inference. RESULTS: Eighteen studies (2861 patients) were included. Overall, 1371 (47.9%) underwent CS while 1490 (52.1%) LS. Compared to CS, LS was associated with a significantly reduced RR for AL (RR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.54-0.91; p < 0.01) and AS (RR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.20-0.51; p < 0.0001). Stratified subgroup analysis according to the level of anastomosis (cervical and thoracic) still shows a tendency toward reduced risk for LS. No differences were found for pneumonia (RR 0.78; p = 0.12), reflux esophagitis (RR 0.74; p = 0.36), operative time (SMD -0.25; p = 0.16), hospital length of stay (SMD 0.13; p = 0.51), and 30-day mortality (RR 1.26; p = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: LS anastomosis seems associated with a tendency toward a reduced risk for AL and AS. Although surgeon's own training and experience might direct the choice of esophagogastric anastomosis, our meta-analysis encourages the use of LS anastomosis.
Authors: Asad Kutup; Michael F Nentwich; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Dean Bogoevski; Jakob R Izbicki; Arnulf H Hölscher Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: G Murphy; V McCormack; B Abedi-Ardekani; M Arnold; M C Camargo; N A Dar; S M Dawsey; A Etemadi; R C Fitzgerald; D E Fleischer; N D Freedman; A M Goldstein; S Gopal; M Hashemian; N Hu; P L Hyland; B Kaimila; F Kamangar; R Malekzadeh; C G Mathew; D Menya; G Mulima; M M Mwachiro; A Mwasamwaja; N Pritchett; Y-L Qiao; L F Ribeiro-Pinto; M Ricciardone; J Schüz; F Sitas; P R Taylor; K Van Loon; S-M Wang; W-Q Wei; C P Wild; C Wu; C C Abnet; S J Chanock; P Brennan Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Francisco Schlottmann; Cristian A Angeramo; Camila Bras Harriott; María A Casas; Fernando A M Herbella; Marco G Patti Journal: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 1.719
Authors: Pietro Maria Lombardi; D Bernasconi; G L Baiocchi; M Berselli; A Biondi; C Castoro; M Catarci; M Degiuli; U Fumagalli Romario; S Giacopuzzi; F Marchesi; D Marrelli; M Mazzola; S Molfino; S Olmi; S Rausei; F Rosa; R Rosati; F Roviello; S Santi; L Solaini; F Staderini; J Viganò; G Ferrari Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 7.701