Randomized Trial Comparing Side-to-side Stapled and Hand-sewn Esophagogastric Anastomosis in Neck

Overview

Journal J Gastrointest Surg

Specialty Gastroenterology

Date 2012 Apr 25

PMID 22528571

Citations 36

Authors

Sundeep Singh Saluja

Sukanta Ray

Sujoy Pal

Sumit Sanyal

Nikhil Agrawal

Nihar Ranjan Dash

Peush Sahni

Tushar Kanti Chattopadhyay

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Leak from cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEGA) following esophagectomy is associated with morbidity and poor functional outcome. To address this issue, we conducted a randomized trial comparing "hand-sewn" with "stapled side-to-side" CEGA.

Methods: Of 174 patients who underwent esophageal resection and CEGA between 2004 and 2010, 87 each were randomized to "hand-sewn" and "stapled side-to-side" CEGA [ www.Clinical Trials.gov: NCT00497549]. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak rate. The secondary outcome measures included CEGA construction time and occurrence of anastomotic stricture during follow up.

Results: The overall anastomotic leak rate was 17.2% (major leaks: 8 %). The leak rate was similar among the two groups (hand-sewn: 14/87, stapled: 16/87; p=0.33). The stapled anastomotic technique was faster (25 ±.5 min vs. 27 ± 5.5 min; p=0.02). The overall operative mortality and morbidity rates were 6.3 % and 40.8 %, respectively. At a median follow up of 12 (6-42) months, anastomotic stricture occurred in 24 (14.7 %) patients and was significantly more common in the "hand-sewn" group (17/82 vs. 7/81; p=0.045).

Conclusion: There were no differences in the leak rates and postoperative outcome between the two CEGA techniques. At follow up, anastomotic strictures occurred less frequently following stapled CEGA. The ideal CEGA technique remains elusive.

Citing Articles

Prospective Evaluation of a Universally Applied Laparoscopic Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Protocol Prior to Esophagectomy with Comparison with Historical Controls.

Gergen A, Stuart C, Byers S, Vigneshwar N, Madsen H, Johnson J Ann Surg Oncol. 2023; 30(9):5815-5825.

PMID: 37285095 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-13689-9.

The fragility of significant results from randomized controlled trials in esophageal surgeries.

Lee Y, Samarasinghe Y, Javidan A, Tahir U, Samarasinghe N, Shargall Y Esophagus. 2023; 20(2):195-204.

PMID: 36689016 DOI: 10.1007/s10388-023-00985-2.

Which Anastomotic Techniques Is the Best Choice for Cervical Esophagogastric Anastomosis in Esophagectomy? A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

Chen B, Xia P, Tang W, Huang S J Gastrointest Surg. 2022; 27(2):422-432.

PMID: 36417036 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-022-05482-y.

Hand-sewn versus stapled anastomoses for esophagectomy: We will probably never know which is better.

Jarvinen T, Cools-Lartigue J, Robinson E, Rasanen J, Ilonen I JTCVS Open. 2022; 7:338-352.

PMID: 36003702 PMC: 9390502. DOI: 10.1016/j.xjon.2021.07.021.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

Banks K, Hsu D, Velotta J Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(15).

PMID: 35954331 PMC: 9367610. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14153667.

References

Shad S, Gupta S, Chattopadhyay T . Self-dilatation of cervical oesophagogastric anastomotic stricture: a simple and effective technique. Br J Surg. 1991; 78(10):1254-5. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800781034. View

Vigneswaran W, Trastek V, Pairolero P, Deschamps C, Daly R, Allen M . Transhiatal esophagectomy for carcinoma of the esophagus. Ann Thorac Surg. 1993; 56(4):838-44; discussion 844-6. DOI: 10.1016/0003-4975(93)90341-e. View

Cooke D, Lin G, Lau C, Zhang L, Si M, Lee J . Analysis of cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leaks after transhiatal esophagectomy: risk factors, presentation, and detection. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 88(1):177-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.03.035. View

Fok M, Cheng S, Wong J . Comparison of a single layer continuous hand-sewn method and circular stapling in 580 oesophageal anastomoses. Br J Surg. 1991; 78(3):342-5. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800780323. View

Valverde A, Hay J, Fingerhut A, Elhadad A . Manual versus mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis after resection for carcinoma: a controlled trial. French Associations for Surgical Research. Surgery. 1996; 120(3):476-83. DOI: 10.1016/s0039-6060(96)80066-3. View

. Suturing or stapling in gastrointestinal surgery: a prospective randomized study. West of Scotland and Highland Anastomosis Study Group. Br J Surg. 1991; 78(3):337-41. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800780322. View

Behzadi A, Nichols F, Cassivi S, Deschamps C, Allen M, Pairolero P . Esophagogastrectomy: the influence of stapled versus hand-sewn anastomosis on outcome. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005; 9(8):1031-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.gassur.2005.06.025. View

Urschel J, Blewett C, Bennett W, Miller J, Young J . Handsewn or stapled esophagogastric anastomoses after esophagectomy for cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dis Esophagus. 2002; 14(3-4):212-7. DOI: 10.1046/j.1442-2050.2001.00187.x. View

Dewar L, Gelfand G, Finley R, Evans K, Inculet R, Nelems B . Factors affecting cervical anastomotic leak and stricture formation following esophagogastrectomy and gastric tube interposition. Am J Surg. 1992; 163(5):484-9. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9610(92)90393-6. View

10.

Kondra J, Ong S, Clifton J, Evans K, Finley R, Yee J . A change in clinical practice: a partially stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis reduces morbidity and improves functional outcome after esophagectomy for cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2009; 21(5):422-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2007.00792.x. View

11.

Rao Y, Pal S, Pande G, Sahni P, Chattopadhyay T . Transhiatal esophagectomy for benign and malignant conditions. Am J Surg. 2002; 184(2):136-42. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9610(02)00906-6. View

12.

Urschel J . Esophagogastrostomy anastomotic leaks complicating esophagectomy: a review. Am J Surg. 1995; 169(6):634-40. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9610(99)80238-4. View

13.

Iannettoni M, Whyte R, Orringer M . Catastrophic complications of the cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995; 110(5):1493-500; discussion 1500-1. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5223(95)70072-2. View

14.

Honkoop P, Siersema P, Tilanus H, Stassen L, Hop W, van Blankenstein M . Benign anastomotic strictures after transhiatal esophagectomy and cervical esophagogastrostomy: risk factors and management. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996; 111(6):1141-6; discussion 1147-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5223(96)70215-5. View

15.

Orringer M, Marshall B, Iannettoni M . Eliminating the cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leak with a side-to-side stapled anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000; 119(2):277-88. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5223(00)70183-8. View

16.

Craig S, Walker W, Cameron E, Wightman A . A prospective randomized study comparing stapled with handsewn oesophagogastric anastomoses. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1996; 41(1):17-9. View

17.

Gandhi S, Naunheim K . Complications of transhiatal esophagectomy. Chest Surg Clin N Am. 1997; 7(3):601-10; discussion 611-2. View

18.

Hsu H, Chen J, Huang P, Lee J, Lee Y . Comparison of manual and mechanical cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal resection for squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004; 25(6):1097-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.02.026. View

19.

Santos R, Raftopoulos Y, Singh D, DeHoyos A, Fernando H, Keenan R . Utility of total mechanical stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy: a comparison to conventional anastomotic techniques. Surgery. 2004; 136(4):917-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2004.06.032. View

20.

Laterza E, De Manzoni G, Veraldi G, Guglielmi A, Tedesco P, Cordiano C . Manual compared with mechanical cervical oesophagogastric anastomosis: a randomised trial. Eur J Surg. 1999; 165(11):1051-4. DOI: 10.1080/110241599750007883. View