Hand-Sewn Versus Stapled Esophagogastric Anastomosis in the Neck: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

et al. 2020

Preprint

Background: There are controversies over the efficacy of mechanical stapler when compared with the hand-sewn (HS) technique in patients who underwent esophagogastric anastomosis in terms of efficacy and post-operative advantages. The purpose of the present study is to compare the clinical outcomes of manual and a modified mechanical stapled (MMS) anastomosis (double stapled technique) during esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 409 patient’s medical records who underwent transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between March 2010 and March 2016. All patients were operated using HS technique or MMS technique. All cases were visited in two weeks, four, eight and twelve months after surgery and were evaluated in terms of postoperative complications including anastomotic leakage, regurgitation, anastomotic stricture, dysphagia and need for anastomotic dilatation.Results: 259 (63.3%) patients were operated using HS technique and 150 patients (36.7%) were operated by MMS technique. The mean operative time was 211.45± 82.25 min for the MMS anastomosis group, whereas for the manual group it was 251.42±52.81 min, respectively (P = 0.023). Postoperatively, 38 (14.67%) anastomotic leakage were detected in the HS group compared to 8 (5.33%) the MMS group (P= 0.002). The results showed lesser anastomotic stricture in patients who underwent MMS anastomosis (P= 0.004). However, during the one-year follow-up period, patients with HS anastomosis required more anastomotic dilatation (P= 0.021).Conclusions: Using a MMS anastomosis may reduce operation time and lead to lower rates of anastomotic leak, decrease anastomotic stricture and anastomotic dilatation.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 44%

“…Although, some studies including meta-analysis and systematic reviews have been performed to compare the effectiveness of HS and mechanical stapled techniques (linear or circular stapler), the superiority of one technique over the other is still controversial (14,15).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Hand-sewn and Modified Mechanical Anastomosis in Esophageal Cancer Patients Undergoing Transhiatal Esophagectomy: An Iranian Retrospective Cohort Study

et al. 2020

Preprint

“…Hsu et al compared the operating times entailed in manual and mechanical anastomoses and discovered that duration was signi cantly shorter in mechanical anastomosis technique than manual method (9). However, some studies, including meta-analyses, found no signi cant difference in surgical times between manual and mechanical anastomosis procedures (16,32). The results of the present study showed that the effective time of using a stapled technique for cervical esophageal anastomosis was signi cantly shorter than the manual procedure, This difference may be attributed to a number of reasons: use of numerous hand-sewn techniques described by surgeons (single-layer vs. multilayer anastomosis, interrupted vs. running suture techniques), intraoperative mishaps (e.g., poor alignment of sutures), and the skills of surgeons performing operations (9).…”

Section: Sugimura Et Al Used a Modi Edmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This de ciency is exacerbated by the fact that although some studies, including meta-analyses and systematic reviews, have been conducted to compare the effectiveness of hand-sewn and stapled anastomosis techniques (through the use of linear or circular staplers), the superiority of one approach over the other remains a controversial issue (15,16). To address this matter, we compared the operation times and postoperative outcomes of transhiatal esophagectomy and cervical esophagogastric anastomosis performed via hand-sewn and stapled techniques over a year of follow-up.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of End-to-Side Hand-Sewn and Side-to-Side Stapled Cervical Esophagogastric Anastomosis in Patients with Lower Thoracic Esophageal Cancer Undergoing Transhiatal Esophagectomy: An Iranian Retrospective Cohort Study

et al. 2020

Preprint

Background: Controversies in terms of efficacy and postoperative advantages surround stapled esophagogastric anastomosis compared with the hand-sewn technique as a treatment for patients with esophageal cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of hand-sewn end-to-side esophago-gastrostomy and side-to-side stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy for the aforementioned patients.Methods: This retrospective cohort study involved examining the medical records of 433 patients who underwent transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer from March 2010 to March 2016. All the patients were operated using end-to-side hand-sewn esophago-gastrostomy and side-to-side stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. 409 of the patients received a year’s worth of follow-up evaluations. All the cases were revisited in two weeks as well as in four, eight, and 12 months after surgery. The patients were assessed in terms of postoperative outcomes, including reflux symptoms, anastomotic leakage and stricture, and the need for anastomotic dilatation.Results: Hand-sewn anastomosis was carried out in 271 (62.5%) patients, whereas stapled anastomosis was performed in 162 (37.4%) patients. The mean operative times were 214.46±84.33 min and 250.55±43.31 min for the stapled and hand-sewn anastomosis groups, respectively (P = 0.028). The two groups showed no significant differences with respect to stays in intensive care units and hospitals. Postoperatively, 38 (14.67%) cases of anastomotic leakage were detected in the hand-sewn anastomosis group, with incidence being significantly higher than that in the stapled anastomosis group (8 cases or 5.33%; P = 0.002). Anastomotic stricture occurred less frequently in the patients who underwent stapled anastomosis (P = 0.004). Within the one-year follow-up period, the patients treated via hand-sewn anastomosis more frequently required anastomotic dilatation (P = 0.02).Conclusion: Side-to-side stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis may reduce operation times and decrease the rates of anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, and anastomotic dilatation in patients with lower thoracic esophageal cancer undergoing transhiatal esophagectomy.

“…Stapled techniques have been presented in the past years as a means of minimizing the risk of anastomotic leakage and stricture (10)(11)(12). Collard et al used linear stapling devices in 1998 to carry out esophagogastric anastomosis, and Orringer applied structural modi cations to previously developed techniques to improve results (14), but whether the improved versions are superior remains a matter of debate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of End-to-Side Hand-Sewn and Side-to-Side Stapled Cervical Esophagogastric Anastomosis in Patients with Lower Thoracic Esophageal Cancer Undergoing Transhiatal Esophagectomy: An Iranian Retrospective Cohort Study

et al. 2020

Preprint

Background: Controversies in terms of efficacy and postoperative advantages surround stapled esophagogastric anastomosis compared with the hand-sewn technique as a treatment for patients with esophageal cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of hand-sewn end-to-side esophago-gastrostomy and side-to-side stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy for the aforementioned patients. Methods: This retrospective cohort study involved examining the medical records of 433 patients who underwent transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer from March 2010 to March 2016. All the patients were operated using end-to-side hand-sewn esophago-gastrostomy and side-to-side stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. 409 of the patients received a year’s worth of follow-up evaluations. All the cases were revisited in two weeks as well as in four, eight, and 12 months after surgery. The patients were assessed in terms of postoperative outcomes, including reflux symptoms, anastomotic leakage and stricture, and the need for anastomotic dilatation. Results: Hand-sewn anastomosis was carried out in 271 (62.5%) patients, whereas stapled anastomosis was performed in 162 (37.4%) patients. The mean operative times were 214.46±84.33 min and 250.55±43.31 min for the stapled and hand-sewn anastomosis groups, respectively (P = 0.028). The two groups showed no significant differences with respect to stays in intensive care units and hospitals. Postoperatively, 38 (14.67%) cases of anastomotic leakage were detected in the hand-sewn anastomosis group, with incidence being significantly higher than that in the stapled anastomosis group (8 cases or 5.33%; P = 0.002). Anastomotic stricture occurred less frequently in the patients who underwent stapled anastomosis (P = 0.004). Within the one-year follow-up period, the patients treated via hand-sewn anastomosis more frequently required anastomotic dilatation (P = 0.02). Conclusion: Side-to-side stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis may reduce operation times and decrease the rates of anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, and anastomotic dilatation in patients with lower thoracic esophageal cancer undergoing transhiatal esophagectomy.