Dataset Information

Two-Layer Hand-Sewn Esophagojejunostomy in Totally Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Different esophagojejunostomy (EJ) reconstruction methods are used after totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG), and none is considered a standard technique. This report describes a 2-layer hand-sewn EJ technique during TLTG; we also evaluated postoperative morbidity associated with this technique.

Materials and methods

This retrospective cohort study included all consecutive patients who underwent TLTG for gastric cancer (GC) from 2012 to 2016 at 2 affiliated teaching hospitals. All participating surgeons performed standardized intracorporeal 2-layer hand-sewn EJ.

Results

We included 51 patients who underwent TLTG for GC and standardized EJ anastomosis. Twenty-seven (53%) were male, and the median age was 60 (36-87) years. The average operative time was 337±71 minutes and intraoperative bleeding was 160±107 mL. There were no open conversions related to EJ. Postoperative morbidity was observed in 9 (17.0%) patients. There was no postoperative mortality. EJ leakage was observed in 2 patients (3.8%) and 1 patient (1.9%) developed EJ stenosis. Patients with leakage were managed non-operatively and the patient with stenosis required endoscopic dilation. The median length of hospital stay was 8 (6-29) days.

Conclusions

Two-layer hand-sewn EJ during TLTG for GC is a feasible and safe technique. This method avoids a laparotomy for reconstruction and the disadvantages associated with laparoscopic introduction of mechanical staplers for EJ, and provides an alternative for alimentary tract reconstruction after TLTG.

SUBMITTER: Norero E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5620096 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Compared with open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has achieved rapid development and popularities in the past decades. However, lack of comprehensive analysis in long-term oncological outcomes such as recurrence and mortality hinder its full support as a valid procedure. Therefore, there are still debates on whether one of these options is superior. AIM:To evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients METHODS: Two authors independently extracted study data. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary outcomes, mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes, and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. Review Manager 5.3 and STATA software were used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS:Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5204 participants were included in this meta-analysis. There were no differences in the primary outcomes including the number of lymph nodes harvested during operation, severe complications, short-term and long-term recurrence, and mortality. As for secondary outcomes, compared with the OG group, longer operative time was required for patients in the LG group (MD?=?58.80?min, 95% CI?=?[45.80, 71.81], P?<?0.001), but there were less intraoperative blood loss (MD?=?-?54.93?ml, 95% CI?=?[-?81.60, -?28.26], P?<?0.001), less analgesic administration (frequency: MD?=?-?1.73, 95% CI?=?[-?2.21, -?1.24], P?<?0.001; duration: MD?=?-?1.26?days, 95% CI?=?[-?1.40, -?1.12], P?<?0.001), shorter hospital stay (MD?=?-?1.37?days, 95% CI?=?[-?2.05, -?0.70], P?<?0.001), shorter time to first flatus (MD?=?-?0.58?days, 95% CI?=?[-?0.79, -?0.37], P?<?0.001), ambulation (MD?=?-?0.50?days, 95% CI?=?[-?0.90, -?0.09], P?=?0.02) and oral intake (MD?=?-?0.64?days, 95% CI?=?[-?1.24, -?0.03], P?<?0.04), and less total complications (RR?=?0.81, 95% CI?=?[0.71, 0.93], P?=?0.003) in the OG group. There was no difference in blood transfusions (number, quantity) between these two groups. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and the adjustment of Duval's trim and fill methods for publication bias did not change the conclusions. CONCLUSION:LG was comparable to OG in the primary outcomes and had some advantages in secondary outcomes for gastric cancer patients. LG is superior to OG for gastric cancer patients.