ObjectiveTo explore clinical outcomes of complete mechanical cervical side-to-side esophago-gastric tube anastomosis. MethodsClinical data of 60 patients with esophageal carcinoma (EC)who underwent complete mechanical cervical side-to-side esophago-gastric tube anastomosis in the 153rd Central Hospital of People's Liberation Army from June 2010 to June 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 41 male and 19 female patients with their age of 46-78 (64.2±6.4)years and body weight of 58.6±12.6 kg. There were 39 patients with mid-thoracic EC, 15 patients with lower-thoracic EC, and 6 patients with upper-thoracic EC. There was 1 patient with stageⅠ EC, 32 patients with stage Ⅱ EC, 23 patients with stage Ⅲ EC, and 4 patients with stage Ⅳ EC. Six to 12 months after the operation, all the patients received a survey questionnaire regarding their quantity and quality of food intake as well as gastroesophageal reflux (GER). Fifty-two patients received barium swallow, and 38 patients received gastroscopy and esophageal mucosal biopsy during follow-up. ResultsAll the 60 patients were successfully discharged. Average length of hospital stay was 12.0±2.6 days. Average time for anastomosis was 18.4±3.2 minutes. The incidence of anastomotic leak was 1.7% (1/60). During follow-up, all the 60 patients restored normal food intake, and 14 patients (23.3%)had GER symptoms. Barium swallow showed the average anastomotic diameter of 1.6±0.2 cm (range, 1.2 to 2.2 cm). In 45° trendelenburg position, 31 patients (59.6%)had barium GER, but none of the patients had prolonged barium retention, intrathoracic gastric dilation or disturbed gastric emptying. Gastroscopy of 38 patients showed full anastomotic opening in 24 patients (63.2%)and irregular or semiclosed anastomosis in the other 14 patients (36.8%). Mucosal biopsy under gastroscopy showed chronic inflammation in 18.4% (7/38)patients. ConclusionComplete mechanical cervical side-to-side esophago-gastric tube anastomosis can significantly prevent anastomotic stenosis, leak and intrathoracic stomach symptoms with good clinical outcomes.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect on complication after esophagectomy by comparing the different methods of anastomosis (cervical versus thoracic anastomosis). MethodsWe searched the following databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang database to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cervical versus thoracic anastomosis for esophagectomy patients from establishment of each database to October 30, 2014. Quality of the included RCT was evaluated. Meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsWe finally identified 4 RCTs involving 267 patients. In terms of the postoperative complication, the incidence of anastomotic leakage (RR=3.83, 95%CI 1.70 to 8.63, P=0.001) with cervical anastomosis was significantly higher than that of the patients with thoracic anastomosis. However, there was no statistical difference in incidence of anastomotic stricture (RR=1.04, 95%CI 0.62 to 1.76, P=0.87), pulmonary complication (RR=0.73, 95%CI 0.27 to 1.91, P=0.52), and mortality (RR=0.89, 95%CI 0.40 to 1.97, P=0.77) between cervical and thoracic anastomosis. ConclusionCompared with thoracic anastomosis, the method of cervical anastomosis is associated with a higher incidence of anastomotic leakage. But there are many unclear factors about anastomotic stricture, pulmonary complication and mortality, further measurement should be taken.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety between intrathoracic anastomosis (IA) and cervical anastomosis (CA) after esophagectomy using gastric tube. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2014), Web of Knowledge, CNKI, CBM, and WanFang Data for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of IA vs. CA after esophagectomy using gastric tube from inception to Nov, 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 10 RCTs involving 1 138 patients were included, of which, 570 patients were in the IA group and the other 568 patients were in the CA group. The results of meta-analysis showed that the incidences of anastomotic leak (RR=2.72, 95%CI 1.67 to 4.45, P<0.05) and injury of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RR=5.64, 95%CI 2.41 to 13.18, P<0.05) in the IA group were significantly lower than those in the CA group, but the IA group had a higher rate of positive margins (RR=0.25, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.67, P<0.05). There were no significant differences between two groups in postoperative anastomotic stricture (RR=1.12, 95%CI 0.73 to 1.74), pulmonary complications (RR=1.10, 95%CI 0.60 to 2.01), operation mortality (RR=1.03, 95%CI 0.55 to 1.94), tumor recurrence (RR=1.57, 95%CI 0.72 to 3.44) and chylothorax (RR=0.76, 95%CI 0.24 to 2.36). ConclusionIA after esophagectomy using gastric tube has lower rates of anastomotic leak and injury of recurrent laryngeal nerve than CA but with a higher rate of positive margins. There are no significant differences between the two surgical operations in operation mortality, postoperative anastomotic stricture and pulmonary complications. IA could reduce the incidence of postoperative complications and is an effective and safe surgical operation for digestive tract reconstruction after esophagectomy. Due to limited quality and quantity of included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the conclusion for long-term efficacy and the quality of life.