Dataset Information

Purse-indigitation mechanical anastomosis vs. traditional mechanical anastomosis undergoing McKeown esophagectomy: a retrospective comparative cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Postoperative anastomosis-related complication rates remain high in patients undergoing McKeown esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis, and the optimal anastomotic technique remains under debate. We describe a new method of anastomosis, referred to as purse-indigitation mechanical anastomosis (PIMA) by reinforcing esophagogastric anastomosis, which can be performed after minimally invasive surgery. This study was designed to compare its feasibility, efficacy, and safety with those of traditional mechanical anastomosis (TMA).

Methods

Between September 2020 and January 2022, 264 patients undergoing McKeown esophagectomy at a single center were included. Demographic data, including patient age, sex, diagnosis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy/radiation therapy in cases of malignancy, comorbidities, and operation time, anastomotic time, estimated blood loss, post‑operative complications were collected. Their medical records were retrospectively reviewed, analyzed and compared between the PIMA and TMA cohorts.

Results

The baseline comparability of the PIMA and TMA before the comparisons is no statistical difference. Univariable analysis revealed significantly decreased anastomotic leak rate with PIMA compared to TMA (4.10% vs. 11.59%, P=0.04). No significant difference was demonstrated in total operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, or pulmonary complications between PIMA and TMA (243.94±21.98 vs. 238.70±28.45 min; 201.10±67.83 vs. 197.39±65.13 mL; 8.83±2.77 vs. 9.35±3.78 days; 8.21% vs. 11.59%; all P>0.05). The incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (3.44% vs. 50%) was significantly associated with an increased rate of anastomotic leak [odds ratio (OR): 15.50; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.81-43.71; P<0.01].

Conclusions

PIMA is feasible, safe to perform, and demonstrated a leak rate less than half that of TMA in this study. PIMA may represent a superior alternative to standard esophagogastric cervical anastomosis techniques. Larger sample size and long-term survival are required to fully evaluate PIMA.

SUBMITTER: Wang P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9469178 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Purse-indigitation mechanical anastomosis <i>vs.</i> traditional mechanical anastomosis undergoing McKeown esophagectomy: a retrospective comparative cohort study.

Wang Peiyuan P Zhang Derong D Lin Xiaozhou X Chen Yujie Y He Hao H Chen Peng P Chen Weijie W Zhou Hang H Chen Suyu S Chen Zhen Z Flores Raja M RM Wakefield Connor J CJ Sarkaria Inderpal S IS Liu Shuoyan S Wang Feng F

Annals of translational medicine 20220801 16

<h4>Background</h4>Postoperative anastomosis-related complication rates remain high in patients undergoing McKeown esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis, and the optimal anastomotic technique remains under debate. We describe a new method of anastomosis, referred to as purse-indigitation mechanical anastomosis (PIMA) by reinforcing esophagogastric anastomosis, which can be performed after minimally invasive surgery. This study was designed to compare its feasibility, efficacy, and safety with ...[more]

PMID: 36111034

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEsophagectomy with extended lymphadenectomy remains the mainstay of treatment for localized esophageal cancer. Currently, transthoracic and abdominal esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis (McKeown esophagectomy) is a frequently used technique in Japan. However, cervical anastomosis is still an invasive procedure with a high incidence of anastomotic leakage. The use of a drainage tube to treat anastomotic leakage is effective, but the routine placement of a closed suction drain around the anastomosis at the end of the operation remains controversial. The objective of this study is to evaluate the postoperative anastomotic leakage rate, duration to oral intake, hospital stay, and analgesic use with nonplacement of a cervical drainage tube as an alternative to placement of a cervical drainage tube.MethodsThis is an investigator-initiated, investigator-driven, open-label, randomized controlled parallel-group, noninferiority trial. All adult patients (aged ≥20 and ≤85 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-3 N0-3 M0) squamous cell carcinoma, adenosquamous cell carcinoma, or basaloid squamous cell carcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus, and European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1, or 2 are assessed for eligibility. Patients (n = 110) with resectable esophageal cancer who provide informed consent in the outpatient clinic are randomized to either nonplacement of a cervical drainage tube (n = 55) or placement of a cervical drainage tube (n = 55). The primary outcome is the percentage of Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or higher anastomotic leakage.DiscussionThis is the first randomized controlled trial comparing nonplacement versus placement of a cervical drainage tube during McKeown esophagectomy with regards to the usefulness of a drain for anastomotic leakage. If our hypothesis is correct, nonplacement of a cervical drainage tube will be recommended because it is associated with a similar anastomotic leakage rate but less pain than placement of a cervical drainage tube.Trial registrationUMIN-CTR, 000031244. Registered on 1 May 2018.

Project description:BackgroundOur aim was to evaluate the influence of staged goal directed therapy (GDT) on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), intraoperative hemodynamics and oxygenation in patients undergoing Mckeown esophagectomy.MethodsPatients were randomly divided into three groups, staged GDT group (group A, n = 56): stroke volume variation (SVV) was set at 8-10% during the one lung ventilation (OLV) stage and 8-12% during the two lung ventilation (TLV) stage, GDT group (group B, n = 56): received GDT with a target SVV of 8-12% During the entire surgical procedure, and control group (group C, n = 56): conventional fluid therapy was administered by mean arterial pressure (MAP), central venous pressure (CVP), and urine volume. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications within Postoperative days (POD) 7. The secondary outcomes were postoperative lung ultrasound (LUS) B-lines artefacts (BLA) scoring, incidence of other complications, the length of hospital stay, intraoperative hemodynamic and oxygenation indicators included mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), cardiac index (CI), cardiac output (CO), oxygenation index (OI), respiratory indices (RI), alveolar-arterial oxygen difference (Aa-DO2).ResultsPatients in group A and group B had a lower incidence of PPCs (7/56 vs. 17/56 and 9/56 vs. 17/56, p < 0.05), and a fewer B-lines score on postoperative ultrasound (4.61 ± 0.51 vs. 6.15 ± 0.74 and 4.75 ± 0.62 vs. 6.15 ± 0.74, p < 0.05) compared to group C. The CI, CO, MAP, and OI were higher in group A compared to group B and group C in the stage of thoracic operation. During the abdominal operation stage, patients in group A and group B had a better hemodynamic and oxygenation indicators than group C.ConclusionsIn comparison to conventional fluid therapy, intraoperative staged GDT can significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing McKeown esophagectomy, facilitating patient recovery. Compared to GDT, it can improve intraoperative oxygenation and stabilize intraoperative hemodynamics in patients.Trial registrationThis study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 24/11/2021 (ChiCTR2100053598).

Project description:To update our experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 445 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy between January 2009 and July 2015 at the Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and used 103 patients who underwent open McKeown esophagectomy in the same period as controls. Among 375 patients who underwent total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy, 180 in the early period were chosen for the study of learning curve of total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. These 180 minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomies performed by five surgeons were divided into three groups according to time sequence as group 1 (n = 60), group 2 (n = 60) and group 3 (n = 60).Patients who underwent total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy had significantly less intraoperative blood loss than patients who underwent hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy or open McKeown esophagectomy (100 mL vs 300 mL vs 200 mL, P = 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in operation time, number of harvested lymph nodes, or postoperative morbidity including incidence of pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak between total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy, hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy and open McKeown esophagectomy groups. There were no significant differences in 5-year survival between these three groups (60.5% vs 47.9% vs 35.6%, P = 0.735). Patients in group 1 had significantly longer duration of operation than those in groups 2 and 3. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, or postoperative morbidity including incidence of pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak between groups 1, 2 and 3.Total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss and comparable short term and long term survival compared with hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy or open Mckeown esophagectomy. At least 12 cases are needed to master total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy in a high volume center.

Project description:BackgroundTransthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed as part of curative multimodality treatment. There appears to be no robust evidence on the preferred location of the anastomosis after transthoracic MIE.ObjectiveTo compare an intrathoracic with a cervical anastomosis in a randomized clinical trial.Design, setting, and participantsThis open, multicenter randomized clinical superiority trial was performed at 9 Dutch high-volume hospitals. Patients with midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer planned for curative resection were included. Data collection occurred from April 2016 through February 2020.InterventionPatients were randomly assigned (1:1) to transthoracic MIE with intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was anastomotic leakage requiring endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes were overall anastomotic leak rate, other postoperative complications, length of stay, mortality, and quality of life.ResultsTwo hundred sixty-two patients were randomized, and 245 were eligible for analysis. Anastomotic leakage necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 of 122 patients with intrathoracic anastomosis (12.3%) and in 39 of 123 patients with cervical anastomosis (31.7%; risk difference, -19.4% [95% CI, -29.5% to -9.3%]). Overall anastomotic leak rate was 12.3% in the intrathoracic anastomosis group and 34.1% in the cervical anastomosis group (risk difference, -21.9% [95% CI, -32.1% to -11.6%]). Intensive care unit length of stay, mortality rates, and overall quality of life were comparable between groups, but intrathoracic anastomosis was associated with fewer severe complications (risk difference, -11.3% [-20.4% to -2.2%]), lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (risk difference, -7.3% [95% CI, -12.1% to -2.5%]), and better quality of life in 3 subdomains (mean differences: dysphagia, -12.2 [95% CI, -19.6 to -4.7]; problems of choking when swallowing, -10.3 [95% CI, -16.4 to 4.2]; trouble with talking, -15.3 [95% CI, -22.9 to -7.7]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, intrathoracic anastomosis resulted in better outcome for patients treated with transthoracic MIE for midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.Trial registrationTrialregister.nl Identifier: NL4183 (NTR4333).