Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Randomized Trial Comparing Side-to-Side Stapled and Hand-Sewn Esophagogastric Anastomosis in Neck

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery Aims and scope

Abstract

Background

Leak from cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEGA) following esophagectomy is associated with morbidity and poor functional outcome. To address this issue, we conducted a randomized trial comparing “hand-sewn” with “stapled side-to-side” CEGA.

Methods

Of 174 patients who underwent esophageal resection and CEGA between 2004 and 2010, 87 each were randomized to “hand-sewn” and “stapled side-to-side” CEGA [www.Clinical Trials.gov: NCT00497549]. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak rate. The secondary outcome measures included CEGA construction time and occurrence of anastomotic stricture during follow up.

Results

The overall anastomotic leak rate was 17.2 % (major leaks: 8 %). The leak rate was similar among the two groups (hand-sewn: 14/87, stapled: 16/87; p = 0.33). The stapled anastomotic technique was faster (25 ± 6.5 min vs. 27 ± 5.5 min; p = 0.02). The overall operative mortality and morbidity rates were 6.3 % and 40.8 %, respectively. At a median follow up of 12 (6–42) months, anastomotic stricture occurred in 24 (14.7 %) patients and was significantly more common in the “hand-sewn” group (17/82 vs. 7/81; p = 0.045).

Conclusion

There were no differences in the leak rates and postoperative outcome between the two CEGA techniques. At follow up, anastomotic strictures occurred less frequently following stapled CEGA. The ideal CEGA technique remains elusive.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Orringer MB, Lemmer JH. Early dilation in the treatment of esophageal disruption. Ann Thorac Surg. 1986; 42:536-9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Iannettoni MD, Whyte RI, Orringer MB. Catastrophic complications of the cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995; 110 :1493-1501.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Dewar L, Gelfand G, Finley RJ, Evans K, Inculet R, Nelems B. Factors affecting cervical anastomotic leak and stricture formation following esophagogastrectomy and gastric tube interposition. Am J Surg. 1992; 163:484-9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD. Transhiatal esophagectomy: clinical experience and refinements. Ann Surg. 1999; 230:392-403.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fok M, Ah-Chong AK, Cheng SW, Wong J. Comparison of a single layer continuous hand-sewn method and circular stapling in 580 oesophageal anastomoses. Br J Surg. 1991; 78:342-5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Craig SR, Walker WS, Cameron EW, Wightman AJ. A prospective randomized study comparing stapled with hand-sewn oesophagogastric anastomoses. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1996; 41: 17-9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Valverde A, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Elhadad A. Manual versus mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis after resection for carcinoma: a controlled trial. French Associations for Surgical Research. Surgery. 1996; 120:476-83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Laterza E, de' Manzoni G, Veraldi GF, Guglielmi A, Tedesco P, Cordiano C. Manual compared with mechanical cervical oesophagogastric anastomosis: a randomised trial. Eur J Surg. 1999; 165:1051-4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Law S, Fok M, Chu KM, Wong J. Comparison of hand-sewn and stapled esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal resection for cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 1997; 226:169-73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Suturing or stapling in gastrointestinal surgery: a prospective randomized study. West of Scotland and Highland Anastomosis Study Group.Br J Surg. 1991; 78:337-41.

  11. Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD. Eliminating the cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leak with a side-to-side stapled anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000; 119:277-88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chava SP. The effect of side-to-side stapled anastomotic technique on the incidence of esophageal-gastric conduit anastomotic leaks post esophagectomy. New Delhi: All India Institute of Medical Sciences; 2004: pp1-33 [thesis].

  13. Shad SK, Gupta S, Chattopadhyay T. Self-dilatation of cervical oesophagogastric anastomotic stricture: a simple and effective technique. Br J Surg. 1991; 78:1254-5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Van Oosterom FJ, van Lanschot JJ, Oosting J, Obertop H. A free peritoneal patch does not affect the leakage rate but increases stricture formation of a cervical esophagogastrostomy. Dig Surg. 1999; 16:379-84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Urschel JD. Esophagogastrostomy anastomotic leaks complicating esophagectomy: a review. Am J Surg. 1995; 169:634-40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rao YG, Pal S, Pande GK, Sahni P, Chattopadhyay TK. Transhiatal esophagectomy for benign and malignant conditions. Am J Surg. 2002; 184:136-42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gandhi SK, Naunheim KS. Complications of transhiatal esophagectomy. Chest Surg Clin N Am. 1997; 7(3):601-12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Vigneswaran WT, Trastek VF, Pairolero PC, Deschamps C, Daly RC, Allen MS. Transhiatal esophagectomy for carcinoma of the esophagus. Ann Thorac Surg. 1993; 56:838-46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Urschel JD, Blewett CJ, Bennett WF, Miller JD, Young JE. Handsewn or stapled esophagogastric anastomoses after esophagectomy for cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dis Esophagus. 2001; 14:212-7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hsu HH, Chen JS, Huang PM, Lee JM, Lee YC.Comparison of manual and mechanical cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal resection for squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004; 25:1097-101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cooke DT, Lin GC, Lau CL, Zhang L, Si MS, Lee J, Chang AC, Pickens A, Orringer MB. Analysis of cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leaks after transhiatal esophagectomy: risk factors, presentation, and detection. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:177-85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kondra J, Ong SR, Clifton J, Evans K, Finley RJ, Yee J. A change in clinical practice: a partially stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis reduces morbidity and improves functional outcome after esophagectomy for cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2008;21:422-9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Santos RS, Raftopoulos Y, Singh D, DeHoyos A, Fernando HC, Keenan RJ, Luketich JD, Landreneau RJ. Utility of total mechanical stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy: a comparison to conventional anastomotic techniques. Surgery. 2004; 136:917-25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Behzadi A, Nichols FC, Cassivi SD, Deschamps C, Allen MS, Pairolero PC. Esophagogastrectomy: the influence of stapled versus hand-sewn anastomosis on outcome. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005; 9:1031-42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McManus KG, Ritchie AJ, McGuigan J, Stevenson HM, Gibbons JR. Sutures, staplers, leaks and strictures. A review of anastomoses in oesophageal resection at Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast 1977–1986. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1990; 4:97-100.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Honkoop P, Siersema PD, Tilanus HW, Stassen LP, Hop WC, van Blankenstein M. Benign anastomotic strictures after transhiatal esophagectomy and cervical esophagogastrostomy: risk factors and management. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996; 111:1141-8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Source of funding

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room No 1005, PC block, 1st floor, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India

    Sundeep Singh Saluja, Sukanta Ray, Sujoy Pal, Sumit Sanyal, Nikhil Agrawal, Nihar Ranjan Dash, Peush Sahni & Tushar Kanti Chattopadhyay

Authors
  1. Sundeep Singh Saluja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sukanta Ray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sujoy Pal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sumit Sanyal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nikhil Agrawal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nihar Ranjan Dash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Peush Sahni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tushar Kanti Chattopadhyay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sujoy Pal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saluja, S.S., Ray, S., Pal, S. et al. Randomized Trial Comparing Side-to-Side Stapled and Hand-Sewn Esophagogastric Anastomosis in Neck. J Gastrointest Surg 16, 1287–1295 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-1885-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-1885-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation