RA04.07: A NOVEL TECHNIQUE FOR CERVICAL GASTROESOPHAGEAL ANASTOMOSIS DURING MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 26-26
Author(s):  
Yuequan Jiang

Abstract Background Anastomotic leakage, fibrous stricture and gastroesophageal reflux are three major complications of gastroesophageal anastomosis, particularly in cervical anastomosis. Our aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel cervical anastomosis technique (NA) by comparing it to the traditional side-to-side anastomosis (SS), and the end-to-side anastomosis using a circular stapler (CS) in terms of postoperative leakage, stricture and reflux. Methods A total of 390 patients with thoracic esophageal cancer underwent a minimally invasive esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis (192 with NA, 34 with SS and 164 with CS) in our institute from January 2013 and May 2016. The new anastomotic technique was improved from a type of side-to-side anastomosis technique which was reported by Collard et al. The difference of our new technique is that the part of the anastomotic stump was pushed into the tubular stomach. It let the end part of esophagus was embedded in the gastric tube while the end portion of the stomach was also reversed into the gastric tube (figure 1, 2, 3). The major postoperative complications including postoperative leakage, stricture and reflux were compared using three armed controlled study. Results With regard to the incidence of anastomotic leakage and reflux, the patients who underwent Jiang's anastomosis had a significantly lower rate than those in the SS group and CS group (Leaks: 1.0% vs. 8.8% and 8.5%, P = 0.025, 0.001; Reflux: 5.7% vs. 23.5% and 18.3%, P = 0.003, 0.001). The incidence of dysphagia was 10.4% with an occurrence rate of 1.5% for anastomotic strictures in the NA group. It was significant lower than that in the CS group (41.5% vs. 18.9%, P < 0.05) but not significantly different from that in SS group (11.8% vs. 2.9%). Conclusion The novel anastomotic technique remarkably reduced the incidence of gastroesophageal-anastomotic leakage, stricture and reflux and was a safe and effective technique for minimally invasive esophagectomy. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duo Jiang ◽  
Xian-Ben Liu ◽  
Wen-Qun Xing ◽  
Pei-Nan Chen ◽  
Shao-Kang Feng ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose: This retrospective study evaluated the impact of nasogastric decompression (NGD) on gastric tube size to optimize the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol after McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). Methods: Overall, 640 patients were divided into two groups according to nasogastric tube (NGT) placement intraoperatively. Using propensity score matching, 203 pairs of individuals were identified for gastric tube size comparisons on postoperative days (PODs) 1 and 5. Results: Gastric tubes were larger in the non-NGD group than the NGD group on POD 1 (vertical distance from the right edge of the gastric tube to the right edge of the thoracic vertebra, 22.2 [0–34.7] vs. 0 [0–22.5] mm, p <0.001). No difference was noted between the groups on POD 5 (18.5 [0–31.7] vs. 18.0 [0–25.4] mm, p =0.070). Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that non-NGD was an independent risk factor for gastric tube distention on POD 1. No difference in the incidence of complications (Clavien–Dindo(CD)≥2) (40 (23.0%) vs. 46 (19,8%), p =0.440), pneumonia (CD≥2) (29 [16.8%] vs. 30 [12.9%], p =0.280) or anastomotic leakage (CD≥3) (3 [1.7%] vs. 6 [2.6%], p =0.738) were noted between the without gastric tube distention group and with gastric tube distention group. Conclusion: Intraoperative NGT placement reduces gastric tube distention rates after McKeown MIE on POD 1, but the complications are similar to those of unconventional NGT placement. This finding is based on NGT placement or replacement at the appropriate time postoperatively through bedside chest X-ray examination.


2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 94-94
Author(s):  
Xiaobin Zhang ◽  
Zhigang Li

Abstract Background The minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been developed in the past three decades. In our institution, the MIE was first introduced in 2012, and the proportion of MIE was used for over 70% in 2016–2017. This study aimed to compare the postoperative recovery outcomes between MIE and open esophagectomy in different period. Methods A total of 725 patients were enrolled in this study including 248 patients who underwent open esophagectomy within 2012–2013 and 477 patients who underwent MIE within 2016–2017. All patients received McKeown esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy. And the perioperative complications were recorded according to the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) complication definitions. Results There was no statistically difference between OPEN and MIE groups with regard to preoperative characters except for age (60.8 ± 7.2 vs. 62.7 ± 7.7, P < 0.001) and body mass index (22.4 ± 3.0 vs. 23.1 ± 3.0, P = 0.002). One (0.2%) patient in the MIE group died within 90 days from anastomotic leakage, compared to 6 (2.4%) patients in the OPEN group (P = 0.004). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the MIE group (11 range 6–131 days, vs. 15 range 9–164 days, P < 0.001). The MIE group was in favor of lower complications (32.3% vs. 46.4%, P < 0.001). Pneumonia was the most common complications in both groups (12.6% in MIE vs. 27.4% in OPEN, P < 0.001). 15 (3.1%) patients in the MIE group experienced atrial arrhythmias compared with 30 (12.1%) in the OPEN group (P < 0.001). Lower anastomotic leakage was noted in the MIE group (11.5% vs. 25.4%, P < 0.001), as well as the wound infection (0.2% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.001), than in the OPEN group. The recurrent nerve injury was higher in the MIE group (11.7% vs. 6.5%, P = 0.024) but with more lymph nodes dissection along the recurrent laryngeal nerve (3.8 ± 2.8 vs. 1.4 ± 2.0, P < 0.001). Conclusion The MIE was associated with better postoperative recovery outcomes and lower mortality. MIE technique should be considered as the mainstay surgical treatment for esophageal cancer in the current and future period. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.


2017 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 267-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans van Workum ◽  
Jolijn van der Maas ◽  
Frits J.H. van den Wildenberg ◽  
Fatih Polat ◽  
Ewout A. Kouwenhoven ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document