Comparison of greater curvature and lesser curvature circular-stapled esophagogastrostomy after esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Anastomosis, Surgical
/ instrumentation
Anastomotic Leak
/ epidemiology
Esophageal Neoplasms
/ surgery
Esophagectomy
/ methods
Esophagus
/ surgery
Female
Gastrostomy
/ methods
Humans
Male
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Prospective Studies
Surgical Staplers
/ adverse effects
Surgical Stapling
/ adverse effects
Treatment Outcome
Anastomotic leakage
Circular stapler
Esophagectomy
Esophagogastrostomy
Journal
Surgery today
ISSN: 1436-2813
Titre abrégé: Surg Today
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 9204360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
20
05
2020
accepted:
11
08
2020
pubmed:
26
9
2020
medline:
16
9
2021
entrez:
25
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Using a circular stapler to create an anastomosis for esophagogastrostomy after esophagectomy is well accepted; however, it remains uncertain if the greater curvature (GC) or lesser curvature (LC) of the gastric conduit is better for the anastomosis. We conducted this prospective study to compare the integrity of esophagogastrostomy between the esophagus and the GC or LC side of the gastric conduit. The subjects of this study were 70 patients who underwent esophagectomy and were randomized to a "GC" group and an "LC" group (n = 35 each). The primary and secondary end points were anastomotic leakage (AL) and anastomotic stricture (AS), respectively. The overall AL rate was 22.1%, without a significant difference between the groups. Stump leakage developed in eight of nine patients in the GC group, whereas leakage developed at the esophagogastric anastomosis in five of six patients in the LC group. The rate of stump leakage was significantly higher than that of esophagogastric AL in the GC group. The overall AS rate was 4.4%, with a significant difference between the groups (0% in the GC group vs. 9.1% in the LC group). AL rates were comparable in the two groups, but the sites of leakage were significantly different.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32974752
doi: 10.1007/s00595-020-02147-8
pii: 10.1007/s00595-020-02147-8
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
575-581Références
Kamarajah SK, Lin A, Tharmaraja T, Bharwada Y, Bundred JR, Nepogodiev D, et al. Risk factors and outcomes associated with anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus. 2020;33:3.
Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2011) TNM classification of malignant tumours. John Wiley and Sons.
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–96.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
Ando N, Kato H, Igaki H, Shinoda M, Ozawa S, Shimizu H, et al. A randomized trial comparing postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil versus preoperative chemotherapy for localized advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (JCOG9907). Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(1):68–74.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-2049-9
Hara H, Tahara M, Daiko H, Kato K, Igaki H, Kadowaki S, et al. Phase II feasibility study of preoperative chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Sci. 2013;104(11):1455–60.
doi: 10.1111/cas.12274
Natsugoe S, Okumura H, Matsumoto M, Uchikado Y, Setoyama T, Yokomakura N, et al. Randomized controlled study on preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone for esophageal squamous cell cancer in a single institution. Dis Esophagus. 2006;19(6):468–72.
doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2006.00615.x
Sasaki K, Uchikado Y, Omoto I, Arigami T, Osako Y, Noda M, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF-RT) for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2019;83(3):581–7.
doi: 10.1007/s00280-018-03764-4
van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, Van Lanschot JJ, Steyerberg EW, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Wijnhoven BP, for the CROSS Group, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(22):2074–84.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1112088
Akiyama H, Miyazono H, Tsurumaru M, Hashimoto C, Kawamura T. Use of the stomach as an esophageal substitute. Ann Surg. 1978;188(5):606–10.
doi: 10.1097/00000658-197811000-00004
Klijn E, Niehof S, De Jonge J, Gommers D, Ince C, Van Bommel J. The effect of perfusion pressure on gastric tissue blood flow in an experimental gastric tube model. Anesth Analg. 2010;110(2):541–6.
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181c84e33
Liebermann-Meffert DM, Meier R, Siewert JR. Vascular anatomy of the gastric tube used for esophageal reconstruction. Ann Thorac Surg. 1992;54(6):1110–5.
doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(92)90077-H
Murakami M, Sugiyama A, Ikegami T, Ishida K, Maruta F, Shimizu F, et al. Revascularization using the short gastric vessels of the gastric tube after subtotal esophagectomy for intrathoracic esophageal carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2000;190(1):71–7.
doi: 10.1016/S1072-7515(99)00234-3
Sekido M, Yamamoto Y, Minakawa H, Sasaki S, Furukawa H, Sugihara T, et al. Use of the “supercharge” technique in esophageal and pharyngeal reconstruction to augment microvascular blood flow. Surgery. 2003;134(3):420–4.
doi: 10.1067/S0039-6060(03)00219-8
Nederlof N, Tilanus HW, Tran TC, Hop WC, Wijnhoven BP, de Jonge J. End-to-end versus end-to-side esophagogastrostomy after esophageal cancer resection: a prospective randomized study. Ann Surg. 2011;254(2):226–33.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31822676a9
Hayata K, Nakamori M, Nakamura M, Ojima T, Iwahashi M, et al. Circular stapling versus triangulating stapling for the cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy in patients with thoracic esophageal cancer: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Surgery. 2017;162(1):131–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2017.01.013
Roumen RM, Rahusen FTG, Wijnen MH, Croiset van Uchelen FAC. “Dog ear” formation after double-stapled low anterior resection as a risk factor for anastomotic disruption. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43(4):522–5.
doi: 10.1007/BF02237198
Ladak F, Dang JT, Switzer N, Mocanu V, Tian C, Birch D, et al. Indocyanine green for the prevention of anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(2):384–94.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6503-7
Goense L, van Rossum PS, Ruurda JP, van Vulpen M, Mook S, Meijer GJ, et al. Radiation to the gastric fundus increases the risk of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:1798–804.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.08.027