A single blinded randomized controlled trial comparing semi-mechanical with hand-sewn cervical anastomosis after esophagectomy for cancer (SHARE-study)

STAPLED FASCIAL CLOSURE VS. CONTINUOUS HAND-SEWN SUTURE: EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE ABDOMINAL WALL ON PORCINE MODEL AND HUMAN CADAVER

BACKGROUND

One of the primary complications associated with large incisions in abdominal surgery is the increased risk of fascial closure rupture and incisional hernia development. The choice of the fascial closure method and closing with minimal tension and trauma is crucial for optimal results, emphasizing the importance of uniform pressure along the suture line to withstand intra-abdominal pressure.

AIMS

To evaluate the resistance to pressure and tension of stapled and sutured hand-sewn fascial closure in the abdominal wall.

METHODS

Nine abdominal wall flaps from human cadavers and 12 pigs were used for the experimentation. An abdominal defect was induced after the resection of the abdominal wall and the creation of a flap in the cadaveric model and after performing a midline incision in the porcine models. The models were randomized into three groups. Group 1 was treated with a one-layer hand-sewn small bite suture, Group 2 was treated with a two-layer hand-sewn small bite suture, and Group 3 was treated with a two-layer stapled closure. Tension measurements were assessed in cadaveric models, and intra-abdominal pressure was measured in porcine models.

RESULTS

In the human cadaveric model, the median threshold for fascial rupture was 300N (300-350) in Group 1, 400N (350-500) in Group 2, and 350N (300-380) in Group 3. Statistical comparisons revealed non-significant differences between Group 1 and Group 2 (p=0.072, p>0.05), Group 1 and Group 3 (p=0.346, p>0.05), and Group 2 and Group 3 (p=0.184, p>0.05). For porcine subjects, Group 1 showed a median pressure of 80 mmHg (85-105), Group 2 had a median of 92.5 mmHg (65-95), and Group 3 had a median of 102.5 mmHg (80-135). Statistical comparisons indicated non-significant differences between Group 1 and Group 2 (p=0.243, p>0.05), Group 1 and Group 3 (p=0.468, p>0.05), and Group 2 and Group 3 (p=0.083, p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Stapled and conventional suturing resist similar pressure and tension thresholds.

Anastomotic Stricture After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Despite improved outcomes, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) continues to be associated with anastomotic strictures. Most resolve after a single dilation; however, some become refractory. Little is known about strictures after MIE in North America.

METHODS

We performed a single-institution retrospective review of MIEs from 2015 to 2019. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients requiring anastomotic dilation and the dilation rate per year. Univariate analyses of patients undergoing dilation by various risk factors were performed with nonparametric tests, and multivariate analyses of the dilation rate were conducted using generalized linear models.

RESULTS

Of 391 included patients, 431 dilations were performed on 135 patients (34.5%, 3.2 dilations per patient who required at least 1 per patient). One complication occurred after dilation. Comorbidities, tumor histology, and tumor stage were not significantly associated with stricture. Three-field MIE was associated with a higher percentage of patients undergoing dilation (48.9% vs 27.1%, P < .001) and a higher rate of dilations (0.944 vs 0.441 dilations per year, P = .007) than 2-field MIE, and this association remained significant after controlling for covariates. When accounting for surgeon variability, this difference was no longer significant. Among patients with 1 or more dilations, those receiving dilation within 100 days of surgery needed more subsequent dilations (2.0 vs 0.6 dilations per year, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

After controlling for multiple variables, a 3-field MIE approach was associated with a higher rate of repeat dilations in patients undergoing MIE. A shorter interval between esophagectomy and initial dilation is strongly associated with the need for repeated dilations.

Advances in conduits and anastomotic techniques employed in esophageal cancer resections: A review

Esophageal surgery has evolved significantly since the first esophagectomy, with advancements in diagnosis allowing medicine to keep pace with the disease's increasing incidence. Multimodal treatment improves outcomes, but surgical resection remains imperative for local control, with various techniques in existence but none demonstrating clear superiority. More recently, minimally invasive and robotic surgery have further reduced perioperative morbidity. This review discusses techniques for esophageal resection, with attention to the options available for anastomosis and reconstructive conduits.

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

INTRODUCTION

The optimal choice of anastomotic techniques for cervical esophagogastric anastomosis in esophagectomy remains unclear.

METHODS

An electronic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (data up to April 2022) was conducted and screened to compare hand sewn (HS), circular stapling (CS), side-to-side linear stapling (LS), and triangulating stapling (TS) for cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. Anastomotic leak, pulmonary complications, anastomotic stricture, and reflux esophagitis of the 4 anastomotic techniques were evaluated using a Bayesian network meta-analysis by R.

RESULT

Twenty-nine studies were ultimately included, with a total of 5,020 patients from 9 randomized controlled trials, 7 prospect cohort studies, and 13 retrospective case-control studies in the meta-analysis. The present study demonstrates that the incidence of anastomotic leakage is lower in TS than HS and CS (TS vs. HS: odds ratio (OR) = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.1 to 0.9; TS vs. CS: OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.13 to 1.0), and the incidence of anastomotic stricture is lower in TS than in HS and CS (TS vs. HS: OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.86; TS vs. CS: OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.58). TS ranks best in terms of anastomotic leakage, pulmonary complication, anastomotic stricture, and reflux esophagitis.

CONCLUSION

TS for cervical esophagogastric anastomosis of esophagectomy had a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage and stricture. TS should be preferentially recommended. Large-scale RCTs will be needed to provide more evidence in future studies.

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

Simple Summary

This is an invited review for the special edition, “Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cancer: Indications and Outcomes.” Indications to perform minimally invasive techniques for esophagectomy rather than the classic open technique do not exist. This review outlines the current research by comparing outcomes among minimally invasive esophagectomy, robot-assisted esophagectomy, and open esophagectomy. After determining the benefits of each technique in terms of each outcome, the discussion focuses on how surgeons may use the presented information to determine which approach is most appropriate. We hope this study provides a comprehensive review of the current state of the literature regarding minimally invasive esophagectomy, as well as a guide for surgeons who treat patients with esophageal cancer.

Abstract

With the evolution of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), questions remain regarding the benefits and indications of these methods. Given that set indications do not exist, this article aims first to review the reported outcomes of MIE, RAMIE, and open esophagectomy. Then, considerations based on the reported outcomes are discussed to guide surgeons in selecting the best approach. MIE and RAMIE offer the potential to improve outcomes for esophagectomy patients; however, surgeon experience as well as individual patient factors play important roles when deciding upon the surgical approach.

Anastomotic Leak: Toward an Understanding of Its Root Causes

BACKGROUND

When an anastomotic leak is discussed at a typical surgical morbidity and mortality conference, it is often presented as a due to an error in surgical technique involving ischemia, tension, or device failure. Here we assert that without direct visual analysis of the leak site and its tissue histology, an ex post facto claim that an anastomotic leak is due to an error in surgical technique remains speculative.

METHODS

The arguments and rationale used to conclude that an anastomotic leak is due to an error in surgical technique are critically reviewed and assessed for their validity.

RESULTS

No case series or literature exists in which a root cause analysis has been carried out with visual and tissue level evidence to determine the root cause(s) of an anastomotic leak.

CONCLUSIONS

At the individual case level, declaring that an anastomotic leak is due to an error in surgical technique without clear and compelling evidence either visually and/or at the tissue level to substantiate such a claim remains speculative.

A single blinded randomized controlled trial comparing semi-mechanical with hand-sewn cervical anastomosis after esophagectomy for cancer (SHARE-study)

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to compare leak rate between hand-sewn end-to-end anastomosis (ETE) and semi-mechanical anastomosis (SMA) after esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction.

BACKGROUND DATA

The optimal surgical technique for creation of an anastomosis in the neck after esophagectomy is unclear.

METHODS

Patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction and cervical anastomosis were eligible for participation after written informed consent. Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was anastomotic leak rate defined as external drainage of saliva from the site of the anastomosis or intra-thoracic manifestation of leak. Secondary endpoints included anastomotic stricture rate at one year follow up, number of endoscopic dilatations, dysphagia-score, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. Patients were blinded for intervention.

RESULTS

Between August 2011 and July 2014, 174 patients with esophageal cancer underwent esophagectomy. Ninety-three patients were randomized to ETE (n = 44) or SMA (n = 49). Anastomotic leak occurred in 9 of 44 patients (20%) in the ETE group and 12 of 49 patients (24%) in the SMA group (absolute difference 4%, 95% CI -13% to +21%; p = .804). There was no significant difference in dysphagia at 1 year postoperatively (ETE 25% vs. SMA 20%; p = .628), in stricture rate (ETE 25% vs. 19% in SMA, p = .46), nor in median hospital stay (17 days in the ETE group, 13 days in the SMA group), morbidity (82% vs. 73%, p = .460) or mortality (0% vs. 4%, p = .175) between the groups.