4.6 Article

Comparison of manual and mechanical cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal resection for squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 25, Issue 6, Pages 1097-1101

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.02.026

Keywords

esophageal cancer; anastomosis; surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The use of a circular stapler in cervical esophagogastric anastomosis remains controversial. This study was to compare the postoperative and long-term results of manual and mechanical techniques for cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after resection for squamous cell carcinoma. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was undertaken in 63 patients with curatively resectable squamous cell cancer of the thoracic esophagus between 1996 and 1999. Patients were randomized to receive either a hand-sewn (32 patients) or circular stapled (31 patients) cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. Results: The mean operating time was longer when the hand-sewn method was used (524 vs. 447 min, P < 0.001). Anastomotic leakage was noted in seven patients (22%) in the hand-sewn group and eight patients (26%) in the stapler group (P = NS). Hospital mortality occurred in four patients (13%) of the hand-sewn group and in three patients (10%) of the stapler group (P = NS). After the operation, four patients (14%) in the hand-sewn group and five patients (18%) in the stapler group developed a benign esophageal stricture (P = NS). The mean follow-up time was 24 months, and the rates of freedom from benign stricture and survival were comparable in each group. Conclusions: Performing cervical esophagogastric anastomoses using a circular mechanical stapler had a shorter operating time and a comparable outcome to the hand-sewn method. The circular mechanical stapler could be used as an alternative for cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after resection for esophageal squamous cell cancer. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available