The Esophagogastric Anastomosis: The Importance of Anchoring Sutures in Reducing Anastomotic Leak Rates.


Journal

Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches
ISSN: 2691-3593
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101769928

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Mar 2023
Historique:
received: 09 06 2022
accepted: 29 11 2022
medline: 21 8 2023
pubmed: 21 8 2023
entrez: 21 8 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The incidence of anastomotic leakage in gastrointestinal surgery is highest after esophagogastric anastomosis, with leakage rates of 10% to 38% still being reported, but little consensus as to cause or corrective. The role of anastomotic tension from a series of physiological forces acting on the anastomosis from the moment of recovery from anesthesia may be underestimated. It was hypothesized that anchoring the conduit in the mediastinum would provide the greatest protection during the vulnerable healing phase. A prospectively maintained database was interrogated for anastomotic leakage following the introduction of an anastomotic technique employing anchoring sutures where the gastric conduit was secured to the mediastinal pleura with 3 obliquely inserted load-bearing sutures. A contrast study was performed between days 5 and 7 and all intrahospital mortalities underwent autopsy. Clinical, radiological, and autopsy leaks were recorded. Of 146 intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomoses in 144 patients, 81 (55%) of which were stapled, there was 1 clinical leak and 1 patient with an aortoenteric fistula, considered at autopsy to be possibly due to an anastomotic leak, to give an anastomotic leak rate of 2 in 146 (1.37%). The low anastomotic leak rate in this series is potentially due to the protective effect of anchoring sutures, the chief difference from an otherwise standard anastomotic technique. These sutures protect the anastomosis from a series of distracting forces during the most vulnerable phase of healing. It is intuitive that the absence of tension would also reduce any risk posed by a minor impairment of blood supply or any imperfection of the technique.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
The incidence of anastomotic leakage in gastrointestinal surgery is highest after esophagogastric anastomosis, with leakage rates of 10% to 38% still being reported, but little consensus as to cause or corrective. The role of anastomotic tension from a series of physiological forces acting on the anastomosis from the moment of recovery from anesthesia may be underestimated. It was hypothesized that anchoring the conduit in the mediastinum would provide the greatest protection during the vulnerable healing phase.
Patients and Methods UNASSIGNED
A prospectively maintained database was interrogated for anastomotic leakage following the introduction of an anastomotic technique employing anchoring sutures where the gastric conduit was secured to the mediastinal pleura with 3 obliquely inserted load-bearing sutures. A contrast study was performed between days 5 and 7 and all intrahospital mortalities underwent autopsy. Clinical, radiological, and autopsy leaks were recorded.
Results UNASSIGNED
Of 146 intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomoses in 144 patients, 81 (55%) of which were stapled, there was 1 clinical leak and 1 patient with an aortoenteric fistula, considered at autopsy to be possibly due to an anastomotic leak, to give an anastomotic leak rate of 2 in 146 (1.37%).
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
The low anastomotic leak rate in this series is potentially due to the protective effect of anchoring sutures, the chief difference from an otherwise standard anastomotic technique. These sutures protect the anastomosis from a series of distracting forces during the most vulnerable phase of healing. It is intuitive that the absence of tension would also reduce any risk posed by a minor impairment of blood supply or any imperfection of the technique.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37600864
doi: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000231
pmc: PMC10431275
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e231

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Références

Ann Surg. 1942 Jun;115(6):897-920
pubmed: 17858052
J Ultrasound Med. 2004 Feb;23(2):255-60
pubmed: 14992363
Surg Innov. 2011 Dec;18(4):406-7
pubmed: 21307010
Surg Endosc. 2015 Apr;29(4):961-71
pubmed: 25159628
Gastroenterology. 1985 Mar;88(3):723-30
pubmed: 3967808
Br J Surg. 1995 Jan;82(1):91-4
pubmed: 7881968
Ann Surg. 2019 Apr;269(4):621-630
pubmed: 30308612
Br J Surg. 1990 Aug;77(8):845-57
pubmed: 2203505
Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Feb;28(2):702-711
pubmed: 32648175
Br J Surg. 2001 Oct;88(10):1346-51
pubmed: 11578290
Br Med J. 1968 Sep 7;3(5618):587-8
pubmed: 5691254
Gastroenterology. 1993 Nov;105(5):1565-7
pubmed: 8224664
Am J Surg. 2019 Dec;218(6):1223-1228
pubmed: 31500797
J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Apr;198(4):536-41; discussion 541-2
pubmed: 15051003
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2003 Dec;44(6):775-8
pubmed: 14994746
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Dec;20(13):4274-81
pubmed: 23943033
World J Surg. 2003 Apr;27(4):465-72
pubmed: 12658494
J Am Coll Surg. 1995 Apr;180(4):461-4
pubmed: 7719551
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2004 Feb;16(1):13-21
pubmed: 14764201
Aust J Physiother. 1975 Sep;21(3):104-8
pubmed: 25025545
Surg Clin North Am. 1997 Jun;77(3):549-73
pubmed: 9194880
Dis Esophagus. 2021 Nov 11;34(11):
pubmed: 33846718
Arch Surg. 1964 May;88:865-74
pubmed: 14120721
J Surg Oncol. 2015 Sep;112(3):257-65
pubmed: 26390285
Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2014 Jul-Sep;27(3):216-21
pubmed: 25184776
Lancet. 1984 May 26;1(8387):1151-4
pubmed: 6144878
Ann Thorac Surg. 1992 Dec;54(6):1110-5
pubmed: 1449294
Ann Surg. 1987 Feb;205(2):189-94
pubmed: 3813689
Ann Surg. 2019 Nov;270(5):820-826
pubmed: 31634181
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1988 Apr;95(4):685-91
pubmed: 3280882
Br J Surg. 1984 Oct;71(10):750-1
pubmed: 6487971
Am J Surg. 1992 Apr;163(4):446-7
pubmed: 1558287
Br J Surg. 1993 Jul;80(7):879-81
pubmed: 8369924
Arch Surg. 1973 Oct;107(4):512-4
pubmed: 4580637
Chest. 2009 Feb;135(2):391-400
pubmed: 19017880
J Surg Res. 2006 Aug;134(2):163-7
pubmed: 16564543
J Am Med Assoc. 1947 Oct 25;135(8):485-90
pubmed: 20264956
Radiology. 1983 Jan;146(1):141-4
pubmed: 6849035
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 10;380(2):152-162
pubmed: 30625052
Br J Surg. 1979 Apr;66(4):230-3
pubmed: 454988
J Am Coll Surg. 2015 Feb;220(2):195-206
pubmed: 25592468
Am J Surg. 1992 May;163(5):484-9
pubmed: 1575303
Ann Surg. 2020 Jul;272(1):118-124
pubmed: 30720501
Anat Clin. 1985;7(4):271-83
pubmed: 3833289
Ann Thorac Surg. 2014 Oct;98(4):1512-9
pubmed: 25152385
N Engl J Med. 2012 May 31;366(22):2074-84
pubmed: 22646630
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Sep;47(9):2332-2339
pubmed: 33766456
J Visc Surg. 2011 Oct;148(5):e327-35
pubmed: 22019835
World J Surg. 2019 Oct;43(10):2483-2489
pubmed: 31222637

Auteurs

Thomas N Walsh (TN)

From the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of Surgery, Connolly Hospital Blanchardstown, Dublin, Ireland.

Classifications MeSH