Meta-Analysis of Two Different Methods for Cervical Esophagogastric Anastomosis: Triangulating Versus Circular Stapling

Advantages of Totally Stapled Collard Over Circular Stapled Technique for Cervical Esophagectomy Anastomosis

BACKGROUND

The quality of life between the totally stapled Collard (TSC) and circular stapled (CS) techniques from the patient's perspective has not been assessed. This longitudinal patient-reported outcome and objective data assessment study aimed to compare the effects of TSC vs CS for cervical anastomosis with minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) on the quality of life.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study included patients with esophageal cancer who underwent MIE and cervical anastomosis between April 2019 and February 2021; of whom, 105 and 216 patients received TSC and CS anastomosis, respectively. The objective metrics were evaluated based on postoperative complications. Patient-reported outcomes instruments using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer modules were assessed preoperatively. The Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ) Core 30 and the QLQ-Oesophagus Module 18 assessed the quality of life. Mixed-effects models examined changes in questionnaire scores.

RESULTS

The stenosis rate in the TSC group was significantly lower than that in the CS group. There were no significant differences in other postoperative complications between the groups. In the QLQ Core 30 scale, the TSC group had better emotional function, less fatigue, less appetite loss, and better function than the CS group, with significant differences in different time points between the groups. QLQ-Oesophagus Module 18 revealed that the TSC group had significantly less appetite loss, dysphagia, dry mouth, pain, and obstruction, and better eating and speech than the CS group.

CONCLUSIONS

TSC has significant advantages over the CS technique in lowering postoperative symptom burden and improving quality of life for cervical anastomosis on patient-reported outcomes.

What is the best reconstruction procedure after esophagectomy? A meta-analysis comparing posterior mediastinal and retrosternal approaches

Thoracic esophagectomy is a particularly invasive and complicated surgical procedure, with a reconstruction of the gastrointestinal tract, such as the stomach, jejunum, or colon. The posterior mediastinal, retrosternal, and subcutaneous routes are the three possible esophageal reconstruction routes. Each route has advantages and disadvantages, and the optimal reconstruction route after esophagectomy remains controversial. Additionally, the best anastomotic techniques after esophagectomy in terms of location (Ivor Lewis or McKeown) and suturing (manual or mechanical) are debatable. Our meta-analysis investigating postoperative complications after esophagectomy between the posterior mediastinal and retrosternal routes revealed that the posterior mediastinal route was associated with a significantly lower anastomotic leakage rate than the retrosternal route (odds ratio = 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.87, p < 0.0001). Conversely, pulmonary complications (odds ratio = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.58-1.11, p = 0.19) and mortality between the posterior mediastinal and retrosternal routes (odds ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.56-1.12, p = 0.19) were not significantly different. However, the incidence of pneumonia may be lower when using the retrosternal route rather than the posterior mediastinal route for performing minimally invasive esophagectomy. The McKeown procedure is oncologically necessary for tumors located above the carina to dissect upper mediastinal and cervical lymph nodes; however, the Ivor Lewis procedure offers perioperative and oncological safety for tumors located under the carina. An individualized treatment strategy for selecting the optimal reconstruction procedure can be proposed in future studies based on oncological and patient risk factors considering mid- to long-term quality of life.

Risk Factors of Anastomosis Stricture After Esophagectomy and the Impact of Anastomosis Technique

BACKGROUND

Anastomosis complications after esophagectomy are related to postoperative survival and quality of life. This is a retrospective observational study to identify risk factors for anastomotic stricture after esophageal cancer surgery and the effect of different anastomosis techniques on stricture development.

METHODS

This study included 737 patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer that used stomach conduits. Four types of anastomoses were used: manual sewing (n = 221, 30%), circular stapling (n = 172, 23%), hybrid linear stapling with a 45-mm stapler (HLS; n = 155, 21%), and triangular linear stapling with 60-mm staplers (TLS; n = 189, 26%). Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the risk factors for stricture.

RESULTS

Strictures that required endoscopic dilatation within 1 year after surgery occurred in 105 patients (14%), and 13% of the strictures were related to leakage. Multivariate analysis revealed that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (hazard ratio [HR] 1.726, P = .017), leakage (HR 2.502, P = .015), and anastomosis techniques other than TLS (manual sewing: HR 9.588; circular stapling: HR 6.516; HLS HR 5.462, all P < .001) were significant risk factors for stricture. TLS significantly reduced the stricture rate (3.2%) compared with other techniques (manual sewing: 22.2%; circular stapling:, 14.5%; HLS: 16.1%; P < .001). Stricture rate was lower in the TLS group in patients without leakage (P < .001); however, the effect disappeared with leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Anastomosis stricture occurred in 14% of esophagectomy patients. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, leakage, and anastomosis technique are risk factors for stricture. A large anastomosis area with the TLS technique using 60-mm length linear staplers prevented stricture, especially when leakage was not observed.

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.

Circular vs. linear stapling after minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy: a pooled analysis

Purpose

Current data states that most likely there are differences in postoperative complications regarding linear and circular stapling in open esophagectomy. This, however, has not yet been summarized and overviewed for minimally invasive esophagectomy, which is being performed increasingly.

Methods

A pooled analysis was conducted, including 4 publications comparing linear and circular stapling techniques in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage, pulmonary complications, and mean hospital stay.

Results

Summarizing the 4 chosen publications, no difference in anastomotic insufficiency could be displayed (p = 0.34). Similar results were produced for postoperative pulmonary complications. Comparing circular stapling (CS) to linear stapling (LS) did not show a trend towards a favorable technique (p = 0.82). Some studies did not take learning curves into account. Postoperative anastomotic stricture was not specified to an extent that made a summary of the publications possible.

Conclusions

In conclusion, data is not sufficient to provide a differentiated recommendation towards mechanical stapling techniques for individual patients undergoing MIE and RAMIE. Therefore, further RCTs are necessary for the identification of potential differences between LS and CS. At this point in research, we therefore suggest evading towards choosing a single anastomotic technique for each center. Momentarily, enduring the learning curve of the surgeon has the greatest evidence in reducing postoperative complication rates.