Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anastomosentechniken in der minimal-invasiven Ösophagus- und Magenchirurgie

Anastomotic techniques in minimally invasive esophageal and gastric surgery

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Die Chirurgie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Minimal-invasive Vorgehen haben sich sowohl in der Magen- als auch in der Ösophaguschirurgie als Standardverfahren in großen Zentren etabliert. Bei gleichwertigem onkologischem Outcome profitieren die Patienten in Bezug auf postoperative Schmerzen und Komplikationsraten. Die Anastomose im Rahmen der minimal-invasiven Operation bleibt dabei ein kritischer Schritt und entscheidend für den unmittelbaren postoperativen Verlauf. Hier gibt es in der Literatur keinen klaren Konsens über die empfohlenen Techniken der Anastomosenanlage nach resezierenden Eingriffen des oberen Gastrointestinaltraktes. In dieser Übersichtsarbeit werden verschiedene etablierte Anastomosentechniken in der minimal-invasiven Ösophagus- und Magenchirurgie zusammengefasst und gegenübergestellt.

Abstract

In specialized centers minimally invasive surgery has become established as the standard of care for esophageal and gastric surgery. Offering equal oncological outcome, patients benefit with respect to lower postoperative pain and complication rates. The creation of the anastomosis during minimally invasive surgery remains a critical step and the complications are decisive for the immediate postoperative course. So far no clear consensus exists in the literature regarding the recommended techniques for placement of an anastomosis after resections in the upper gastrointestinal tract. This article summarizes and compares the various established anastomotic techniques used in minimally invasive esophageal and gastric surgery.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6

Literatur

  1. Biere SS et al (2011) Traditional invasive vs. minimally invasive esophagectomy: a multi-center, randomized trial (TIME-trial). BMC Surg 11:2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Briez N et al (2011) Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial—the MIRO trial. BMC Cancer 11:310

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Metcalfe C et al (2016) Comparing open and minimally invasive surgical procedures for oesophagectomy in the treatment of cancer: the ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) feasibility study and pilot trial. Health Technol Assess 20(48):1–68

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. van Workum F et al (2019) Learning curve and associated morbidity of minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective multicenter study. Ann Surg 269(1):88–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Grimminger PP, Lang H (2018) Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy and gastric pull-up reconstruction with an Intrathoracic circular stapled anastomosis with a team of two (surgeon and assistant only). Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 66(5):401–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. de Groot EM et al (2020) Technical details of the hand-sewn and circular-stapled anastomosis in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 33(Supplement_2):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaa055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Deng XF et al (2015) Hand-sewn vs linearly stapled esophagogastric anastomosis for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 21(15):4757–4764

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Schröder W et al (2019) Anastomotic techniques and associated morbidity in total minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy: results from the esobenchmark database. Ann Surg 270(5):820–826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Harustiak T et al (2016) Anastomotic leak and stricture after hand-sewn versus linear-stapled intrathoracic oesophagogastric anastomosis: single-centre analysis of 415 oesophagectomies. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 49(6):1650–1659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fabbi M et al (2022) End-to-side circular stapled versus side-to-side linear stapled intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis following minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: comparison of short-term outcomes. Langenbecks Arch Surg 407(7):2681–2692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cai J et al (2011) A prospective randomized study comparing open versus laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer. Dig Surg 28(5–6):331–337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nickel F et al (2022) Minimally invasivE versus open total GAstrectomy (MEGA): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (DRKS00025765). Bmj Open 12(10):e64286

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lei X et al (2022) Short-and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg Oncol 20(1):405

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Son SY et al (2022) Laparoscopic vs open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: 5‑year outcomes of the KLASS-02 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 157(10):879–886

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. van der Veen A et al (2021) Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer (LOGICA): a multicenter randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 39(9):978–989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kitano S et al (2007) A multicenter study on oncologic outcome of laparoscopic gastrectomy for early cancer in Japan. Ann Surg 245(1):68–72

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim W et al (2016) Decreased morbidity of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy compared with open distal gastrectomy for stage I gastric cancer: short-term outcomes from a multicenter randomized controlled trial (KLASS-01). Ann Surg 263(1):28–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim HH et al (2019) Effect of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy vs open distal gastrectomy on long-term survival among patients with stage I gastric cancer: the KLASS-01 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 5(4):506–513

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Huscher CG et al (2005) Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer: five-year results of a randomized prospective trial. Ann Surg 241(2):232–237

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Straatman J et al (2016) Minimally invasive versus open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes and completeness of resection : surgical techniques in gastric cancer. World J Surg 40(1):148–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kanaya S et al (2002) Delta-shaped anastomosis in totally laparoscopic Billroth I gastrectomy: new technique of intraabdominal gastroduodenostomy. J Am Coll Surg 195(2):284–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yang HK et al (2007) Safety of modified double-stapling end-to-end gastroduodenostomy in distal subtotal gastrectomy. J Surg Oncol 96(7):624–629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lewis TS, Feng Y (2022) A review on double tract reconstruction after proximal gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer. Ann Med Surg 79:103879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Park DJ et al (2023) Effect of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction vs total gastrectomy on hemoglobin level and vitamin B12 supplementation in upper-third early gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 6(2):e2256004

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Hwang SH et al (2022) Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction versus laparoscopic total gastrectomy for upper early gastric cancer: a KLASS 05 randomized clinical trial. J Gastric Cancer 22(2):94–106

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Deutschland

    Carolina Mann,  Felix Berlth &  Peter Philipp Grimminger FACS FEBS

Authors
  1. Carolina Mann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felix Berlth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Philipp Grimminger FACS FEBS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Philipp Grimminger FACS FEBS.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

C. Mann, F. Berlth und P.P. Grimminger geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autor/-innen keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

Redaktion

U. Settmacher, Jena

figure qr

QR-Code scannen & Beitrag online lesen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mann, C., Berlth, F. & Grimminger, P.P. Anastomosentechniken in der minimal-invasiven Ösophagus- und Magenchirurgie. Chirurgie 94, 759–767 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-023-01902-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-023-01902-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation