Abstract
Objective: This study was performed to compare stapled and hand sewn techniques for esophagogastric anastomosis on esophagus cancer surgery. The study was focused on to the effect of esophagogastric anastomosis techniques on mortality, morbidity, median operation and hospitalization time.
Material and Methods: A retrospective study was undertaken in 60 patients with eosophagial cancer who underwent resection and anastomosis. Twenty eight patients were operated with transhiatal (48%) and others with transthoracic (54%) approach. Patients were classified to perform stapled anastomosis (Group 1) and hand sewn anastomosis (Group 2). Hand sewn anastomosis technique was performed in 43 (72%) and stapled anastomosis technique was performed in 17 cases (% 28).
Results: The groups were similar regarding age, sex, ASA scores, tumor localization and stage, for the operative approach. Major morbidity was present in 5 patients (30%) in Group 1 and 19 patients (44%) in Group 2. The number of anastomosis leaks was 4 in Group 1 (23%) and 6 in Group 2 (14%). Mortality was encountered in 1 patient in Group 1 (6%) and 5 patients in Group 2 (11%). The mean hospital stay was determined to be 18.4 ± 11.8 days for Group 1 and 16.33 ± 8.1 days for Group 2. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups regarding major morbidity, mortality and mean hospital stay (p>0.05).
Conclusion: In our study, the techniques of anastomosis via hand sewn or stapled were not found to be superior to one another. The practice and skill of the surgeon should be determinant about the application of the methods.
Keywords:
Esophageal neoplasms, anastomosis, stapler
References
1Başoğlu A. Özofagus Kanseri ve Cerrahi Tedavisi. Yüksel M, Başoğlu A. editörler. Özofagus hastalıklarının tıbbi ve cerrahi tedavisi. 1. Baskı, İstanbul: 2002; p1–21.
2Hsao- Hsun H, Jin-Shing C, Pei-Ming H, et al. Comparison of manual and mechanical cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagial resection for squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004; 25:1097–1101.
3Whooley BP, Law S, Murthy SC, et al. Analysis of reduced death and complication rates after esophageal resection. Ann Surg 2001; 233:338–344. doi:10.1097/00000658-200103000-00006
4Hsu HK, Hsu WH, Huang MH. Prospective study of using fibrin glue to prevent leak from esophagogastric anastomosis. J Surg Assoc ROC 1992; 25:1248–1252.
5Law S, Fok M, Chu KM, et al. Comparison of hand-sewn and stapled esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal resection for cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 1997; 226:19–173. doi:10.1097/00000658-199708000-00008
6Fok M, Ah Chong AK, Cheng SW, et al. Comparison of a single layer continuous hand-sewn method and circular stapling in 580 esophageal anastomoses. Br J Surg 1991; 78:342–345. doi:10.1002/ bjs.1800780323
7Wong J, Cheung HC, Lui R, et al. Esophagogastric anastomosis performed with a stapler: the occurrance of leakage and stricture. Surgery 1987; 102:408–415.
8Urschel JD. Esophagogastrostomy anastomotic leaks complicating esophagotomy: a review. Am J Surg 1995; 169:634–640. doi:10.1016/S0002-9610(99)80238-4
9Peracchia A, Bardini R, Ruol A, et al. Esophagovisceral anastomotic leak: a prospective statistical study of predisposing factors. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1988; 95:685–691.
10Urschel JD, Blewett CJ, Bennett WF, et al. Handsewn or stapled esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy for cancer: meta-analysis of randomized contolled trials. Dis Esophagus 2001; 14:212–
11doi:10.1046/j.1442-2050.2001.00187.x
12Muller JM, Erasmi H, Stelzner M, et al. Surgical therapy of esophageal carcinoma. Br J Surg 1990; 77:845–857.
13Bartels H, Thorban S, Siewert JR. Anterior versus posterior reconstruction after transhiatal esophagectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Surg 1993; 80:1141– 1144. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800800924
14Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD. Eliminating the cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leak with a side-to-side stapled anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiaovasc Surg 2000; 119:277–288. doi:10.1016/ S0022-5223(00)70183-8