Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Outcomes with Semi-mechanical and Circular Stapled Intrathoracic Esophagogastric Anastomosis following Esophagectomy

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Several techniques have been described for esophagogastric anastomosis following esophagectomy. This study compared the outcomes of circular stapled anastomoses with semi-mechanical technique using a linear stapler.

Methods

Perioperative data were extracted from a contemporaneously collected database of all consecutive esophagectomies for cancer with intrathoracic anastomoses performed in the Trent Oesophago-Gastric Unit between January 2015 and April 2018. Anastomotic techniques: circular stapled versus semi-mechanical, were evaluated and outcomes were compared. The primary outcome was anastomotic leak rate. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic stricture, overall complication rates, length of stay (LOS) and 30 day all-cause mortality.

Results

One hundred and fifty-nine consecutive esophagectomies with intrathoracic anastomosis were performed during the study period. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score, Charlson comorbidity index and neoadjuvant therapies received. Circular stapled anastomoses were performed in 85 patients, while 74 patients received a semi-mechanical anastomosis. Clavien–Dindo complications II or more were higher in the circular stapled group (p = 0.02). There were 16 (10%) anastomotic leaks overall, three (4%) in semi-mechanical group versus 13 (15%) in the circular stapled group (p < 0.019). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of LOS, 30-day mortality or the need for endoscopic dilatation of the anastomosis at 3 months follow-up.

Conclusion

The move from a circular stapled to a semi-mechanical intrathoracic anastomosis has been associated with a reduced postoperative anastomotic leak rate following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dent B et al (2016) Management and outcomes of anastomotic leaks after oesophagectomy. Br J Surg 103(8):1033–1038

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Low DE et al (2019) Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy. Ann Surg 269(2):291–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Goense L et al (2019) Impact of postoperative complications on outcomes after oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg 106(1):111–119

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Booka E et al (2015) The impact of postoperative complications on survivals after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Medicine 94(33):e1369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Low DE (2015) Enhanced recovery pathways lead to an improvement in postoperative outcomes following esophagectomy: systematic review and pooled analysis. Dis Esophagus 28(5):468–475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Forshaw MJ et al (2006) Centralisation of oesophagogastric cancer services: can specialist units deliver? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 88(6):566–570

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Klevebro F et al (2016) A randomized clinical trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction. Ann Oncol 27(4):660–667

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Anderson O et al (2011) Hospital volume and survival in oesophagectomy and gastrectomy for cancer. Eur J Cancer 47(16):2408–2414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Low DE et al (2019) Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Esophagectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS((R))) Society Recommendations. World J Surg 43(2):299–330. 10.1007/s00268-018-4786-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sjoquist KM et al (2011) Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 12(7):681–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang DB et al (2016) Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improving survival outcomes for esophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis. Chin Med J 129(24):2974–2982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Honda M et al (2013) Hand-sewn versus mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 257(2):238–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Casson AG, Porter GA, Veugelers PJ (2002) Evolution and critical appraisal of anastomotic technique following resection of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Dis Esophagus 15(4):296–302

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kondra J et al (2008) A change in clinical practice: a partially stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis reduces morbidity and improves functional outcome after esophagectomy for cancer. Dis Esophagus 21(5):422–429

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD (2000) Eliminating the cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leak with a side-to-side stapled anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 119(2):277–288

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang W-P et al (2013) A prospective randomized controlled trial of semi-mechanical versus hand-sewn or circular stapled esophagogastrostomy for prevention of anastomotic stricture. World J Surg 37(5):1043–1050. 10.1007/s00268-013-1932-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Varagunam M, P.M., Sinha S, Cromwell D, Maynard N, Crosby T, Trudgill N, National Oesophago-gastric Cancer Audit 2018.

  18. Low DE et al (2015) International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg 262(2):286–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Avery KN et al (2014) The feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer—the ROMIO (Randomized Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 15:200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rice TW, Patil DT, Blackstone EH (2017) 8th edition AJCC/UICC staging of cancers of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction: application to clinical practice. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 6(2):119–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Clavien PA et al (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rutegard M et al (2012) Intrathoracic anastomotic leakage and mortality after esophageal cancer resection: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol 19(1):99–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Markar S et al (2015) The impact of severe anastomotic leak on long-term survival and cancer recurrence after surgical resection for esophageal malignancy. Ann Surg 262(6):972–980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ahmed Z et al (2017) Risk factors for anastomotic stricture post-esophagectomy with a standardized sutured anastomosis. World J Surg 41(2):487–497. 10.1007/s00268-016-3746-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Collard JM et al (1998) Terminalized semimechanical side-to-side suture technique for cervical esophagogastrostomy. Ann Thorac Surg 65(3):814–817

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Xu Q-R et al (2011) Linear stapled esophagogastrostomy is more effective than hand-sewn or circular stapler in prevention of anastomotic stricture: a comparative clinical study. J Gastrointest Surg 15(6):915–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Blackmon SH et al (2007) Propensity-matched analysis of three techniques for intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg 83(5):1805–1813 (discussion 1813)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sepesi B et al (2012) Omental reinforcement of the thoracic esophagogastric anastomosis: an analysis of leak and reintervention rates in patients undergoing planned and salvage esophagectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 144(5):1146–1150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yuan Y et al (2011) Omentoplasty for preventing anastomotic leaks after esophagogastrostomy. Surgery 149(6):853–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mariette C et al (2019) Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 380(2):152–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Fady Yanni and Pritam Singh are joint first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Trent Oesophago-Gastric Unit, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK

    Fady Yanni, Pritam Singh, Nilanjana Tewari, Simon L. Parsons, James A. Catton, John Duffy, Neil T. Welch & Ravinder S. Vohra

  2. NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham , Nottingham, UK

    Simon L. Parsons & Ravinder S. Vohra

Authors
  1. Fady Yanni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pritam Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nilanjana Tewari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Simon L. Parsons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James A. Catton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John Duffy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Neil T. Welch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ravinder S. Vohra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fady Yanni.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The authors report no proprietary or commercial interest in any product mentioned or concept discussed in this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yanni, F., Singh, P., Tewari, N. et al. Comparison of Outcomes with Semi-mechanical and Circular Stapled Intrathoracic Esophagogastric Anastomosis following Esophagectomy. World J Surg 43, 2483–2489 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05057-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05057-0

Search

Navigation