【摘要】目的比较胃肠机械吻合与传统手工吻合对术后并发症的影响，探讨机械吻合的安全性问题。 方法对我院1999年1月至2003年12月期间收治的932例行Billroth Ⅱ式胃肠吻合术患者的资料进行回顾性分析，了解其术后并发症的发生情况。 结果行机械吻合的392例中出现术后并发症8例（吻合口漏7例，梗阻1例），其发生率为2.04%； 而使用传统手工吻合的540例中出现术后并发症44例（吻合口漏28例，出血4例，梗阻12例），其发生率为8.15%，明显高于前者（P＜0.01）。 结论胃肠机械吻合较传统手工吻合更为安全。
Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of hand-suture vs. stapling anastomosis in esophagogastrostomy. Methods The following databases such as CBM (1978 to February 2012), VIP (1989 to February 2012), CNKI (1994 to February 2012), WanFang Data (1980 to February 2012), The Cochrane Library, PubMed (1966 to February 2012), EMbase (1974 to February 2012), and relevant webs of clinical trials were searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs about hand-suture vs. stapling anastomosis in the incidence of anastomotic leakage following esophagogastrostomy. Moreover, relevant references and grey literature were retrieved on web engines including Google Scholar and Medical Martix, and the Chinese periodicals e.g. Chinese Journal of Oncology were also handsearched. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the literature, was screened, the data were extracted, and the quality of the included studies was assessed. Then meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.0 software. Results A total of 9 RCTs involving 2 202 patients were included. The result of meta-analysis was as follows: the incidence of anastomotic leakage in the stapling anastomosis group was lower than that in the hand-suture anastomosis group (OR=0.43, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.71, Plt;0.01). Conclusion Stapling anastomosis is superior to hand-suture anastomosis in reducing the incidence of anastomotic leakage following esophagogastrostomy. For the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, this conclusion has to be further proved by more high-quality studies.
ObjectiveTo investigate the influence of semi-mechanical and hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomoses on postoperative anastomostic complications in patients undergoing esophagectomy. MethodsA systematic, computer-aided literature search was performed in PubMed, OVID, CNKI and BioMed databases for studies which were published from database establishment to December 2013. A manual literature search was also performed. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT)and observational studies which investigated the influence of semi-mechanical and conventional hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomoses on postoperative anastomostic complications. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed, and RevMan 5.2 was used for meta-analysis. ResultsTwelve relevant studies with 1 271 patients were included (3 RCTs and 9 observational studies).No significant heterogeneity among the 12 trials was found, so fixed effects model was used for meta-analysis.There was statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leak between hand-sewn and semi-mechanical esophagogastric anastomoses[RCT RR=0.34, 95%CI (0.12, 0.97), P < 0.05;observational studies OR=0.40, 95%CI (0.26, 0.62), P < 0.05]. Postoperative incidence of anastomostic stricture was reported in all 12 studies. There was statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative anastomotic stricture between hand-sewn and semi-mechanical esophagogastric anastomoses[RCT RR=0.14, 95%CI (0.04, 0.47), P < 0.05;observational studies OR=0.22, 95%CI (0.15, 0.34), P < 0.000 1]. ConclusionsCompared with conventional hand-sewn anastomosis, semi-mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis can significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative anastomostic leak and stricture. Due to limited quantity and quality of included studies, more high-quality studies with larger sample size including RCT and non-randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings.
ObjectiveTo compare the complication morbidity of mechanical and hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomosis systemically. MethodsMedline (January 1960 to June 2015), EMbase (January 1980 to June 2015), Cochrane Library (January 1996 to June 2015), Web of Science (January 1980 to June 2015) and other databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about comparing the complication morbidity of hand-sewn and mechanical anastomosis. Moreover, the references were searched by search engines such as Google Scholar. Papers were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. And then the data were extracted. The quality of current meta-analysis was assessed by GRADE profiler 3.6 software. The meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 12.0 software. ResultsA total of 1 611 patients in 14 RCTs were reviewed. The results suggested that the anastomatic leakage rate of mechanical method showed no significant difference from that of hand-sewn method[RR=1.07, 95%CI (0.76, 1.51), P=0.699]. While the anastomatic stenosis rate was even higher[RR=1.59, 95%CI (1.21, 2.09), P=0.001]. ConclusionMechanical method can't reduce the anastomotic leakage rate following esophagogastrostomy, while it maybe increase the risk of anastomotic stenosis on the contrary. The patients' physical condition should be considered when surgeons make the choice.
Objective To compare the safety of manual anastomosis and mechanical anastomosis after esophagectomy by meta-analysis. MethodsThe randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about manual anastomosis and mechanical anastomosis after esophagectomy were searched from PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library from inception to January 2018 by computer, without language restrictions. Two authors according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria independently researched literature, extracted data, evaluated bias risk and used R software meta package for meta-analysis. Results Seventeen RCTs were enrolled, including 2 159 patients (1 230 by manual anastomosis and 1 289 by mechanical anastomosis). The results of meta-analysis showed that: (1) there was no significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic leakage between mechanical and manual anastomosis (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.67–1.48, P=0.181); (2) no significant difference was found in the 30-day mortality (RR=0.95, 95%CI 0.61–1.49, P=0.631); (3) compared with manual anastomosis, the mechanical anastomosis group may increase the risk of anastomotic stenosis (RR=0.74, 95%CI 0.48-1.14, P<0.001). Conclusion Esophageal cancer surgery using a linear or circular stapler can increase the incidence of anastomotic stenosis after surgery. There is no significant difference in the anastomotic leakage and 30-day mortality between manual anastomosis, linear stapler and circular stapler.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic magnetic compression cholangiojejunostomy (LMCCJ) with laparoscopic hand-sutured cholangiojejunostomy (LHSCJ). MethodsA retrospective case-control study was performed. From January 2019 to May 2022, 37 patients, who underwent laparoscopic treatment in this hospital, were enrolled in this study. There were 16 cases in the LMCCJ group and 21 cases in the LHSCJ group. The demographic information, procedure time to complete bilioenteric reconstruction, postoperative hospital stay, operative complications, magnets expulsion time, and follow-up results were collected and analyzed. ResultsThere were no statistical differences in the baseline data such as the gender, age, composition of primary diseases, preoperative total bilirubin, and preoperative common bile duct diameter between the two groups (P＞0.05). The outer diameter of the magnets was (10.50±0.97) mm, the expulsion time of the magnets was (49.69±37.58) d, and the expulsion rate of the magnets was 100% (16/16). There was no intestinal obstruction or gastrointestinal perforation caused by the retention of the magnets. The procedure time to complete bilioenteric reconstruction in the LMCCJ group was statistically shorter than that in the LHSCJ group [(11.31±3.40) min vs. (24.81±3.40) min, t=11.96, P＜0.01]. There was no statistical difference in the total bilirubin level at the first week after surgery between the two groups (U=142.0, P=0.80). The postoperative hospital stay in the LMCCJ group was longer than that in the LHSCJ group [(28.31±14.11) d vs. (16.19±7.56) d, t=3.36, P＜0.01]. During the perioperative period, there was no bleeding or biliary infection in the two groups, but one case of biliary leak in the LHSCJ group. In all 37 patients were followed-up for (548.8±259.2) d. During the follow-up period, the incidence rates of biliary intestinal anastomosis stenosis, tumor recurrence, and mortality had no statistical differences between the two groups (P＞0.05). ConclusionFrom the results of comparative analysis in this study, it can be concluded that LMCCJ is not only safe equally, but also easier and less time-consuming as compared with LHSCJ.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of cone-shaped gastric tube combined with cervical end-to-end stratified manual anastomosis and conventional tubular stomach combined with neck end-to-end mechanical side-to-side anastomosis in thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. MethodsThe clinical data of consecutive patients treated by thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery of the First People's Hospital of Neijiang from January 1, 2018 to March 25, 2021 were analyzed. The patients were divided into a cone-shaped gastric tube manual group (treated with cone-shaped gastric tube combined with cervical end-to-end stratified manual anastomosis) and a conventional tubular stomach mechanical group (treated with conventional tubular stomach+end-to-end mechanical side-to-side anastomosis). The anastomotic time, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph node dissection, anastomotic fistula, anastomotic stenosis, anastomotic cost, sternogastric dilatation, gastroesophageal reflux symptoms, and postoperative complications were compared and analyzed between the two groups. ResultsA total of 161 patients were enrolled, including 112 males and 49 females aged 40-82 years. There were 80 patients in the cone-shaped gastric tube manual group, and 81 patients in the conventional tubular stomach mechanical group. There was no statistical difference in the intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected, hoarseness, pulmonary infection, arrhythmia, respiratory failure or chylothorax between the two groups (P>0.05). The anastomosis time of the cone-shaped gastric tube manual group was longer than that of the conventional tubular stomach mechanical group (28.35±3.20 min vs. 14.30±1.26 min, P<0.001), but the anastomotic cost and incidence of thoracogastric dilatation in the cone-shaped gastric tube manual group were significantly lower than those of the conventional tubular stomach mechanical group [948.48±70.55 yuan vs. 4 978.76±650.29 yuan, P<0.001; 3 (3.8%) vs. 14 (17.3%), P=0.005]. The incidences of anastomotic fistula and anastomotic stenosis in the cone-shaped gastric tube manual group were lower than those in the conventional tubular gastric mechanical group, but the differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05). The gastroesophageal reflux scores in the cone-shaped gastric tube manual group were lower than those in the conventional tubular gastric mechanical group at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after the operation (P<0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that digestive tract reconstruction method was the influencing factor for postoperative thoracogastric dilation, which was reduced in the cone-shaped gastric tube manual group. ConclusionCone-shaped gastric tube combined with cervical end-to-end stratified manual anastomosis can significantly reduce the incidence of thoracogastric dilatation after thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer and save hospitalization costs, with mild gastroesophageal reflux symptoms, and it still has certain advantages in reducing postoperative anastomotic fistula and anastomotic stenosis, which is worthy of clinical promotion.