[Comparison of short-term safety of two anastomotic techniques when resecting Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a multicenter retrospective cohort study].

Q3 Medicine
H K Zhou, X P Gao, F Y Shi, J Y Wang, Q C Yang, S S Li, J Q Liu, P P Ji, W D Wang, P F Yu, R Q Gao, X Guo, G Ji, J P Wei
{"title":"[Comparison of short-term safety of two anastomotic techniques when resecting Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a multicenter retrospective cohort study].","authors":"H K Zhou, X P Gao, F Y Shi, J Y Wang, Q C Yang, S S Li, J Q Liu, P P Ji, W D Wang, P F Yu, R Q Gao, X Guo, G Ji, J P Wei","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn441530-20230913-00088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> In this study, we aimed to compare the short-term safety of two digestive tract reconstruction techniques, laparoscopic total abdominal overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic-assisted end-to-side anastomosis, following radical resection of Siewert Type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. <b>Methods:</b> In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed relevant clinical data of 139 patients who had undergone radical surgery for Siewert Type II esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma. These included 89 patients treated at the First Affiliated Hospital of Air Force Medical University from November 2021 to July 2023, 36 patients treated at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University from December 2020 to June 2021, and 14 patients treated at the Yuncheng Central Hospital in Shanxi Province from September 2021 to November 2022. The group consisted of 107 men (77.0%) and 32 women (23.0%) of mean age 62.5±9.3 years. Forty-eight patients underwent laparoscopic total abdominal overlap anastomosis (overlap group), and 91 laparoscopic-assisted end-to-side anastomosis (end-to-side group). Clinical data, surgical information, pathological findings, postoperative recovery, and related complications were compared between the two groups. <b>Results:</b> There were no significant differences in general clinical data between the overlap and end-to-side anastomosis groups (all <i>P</i>>0.05), indicating comparability. There was no significant difference in operation time (267.2±60.1 minutes vs. 262.8±70.6 minutes, <i>t</i>=0.370, <i>P</i>=0.712). However, the intraoperative blood loss in the overlap group (100 [50, 100] mL) was significantly lower compared to the end-to-side group (100[50, 175] mL, <i>Z</i>=2.776, <i>P</i>=0.005). Compared to the end-to-side group, longer distances between the tumor and distal resection margin proximal(1.7±1.0 cm vs. 1.3±0.9 cm, <i>t</i>=2.487, <i>P</i>=0.014) and the tumor and distal resection margin (9.5±2.9 cm vs. 7.9±3.5 cm, <i>t</i>=2.667, <i>P</i>=0.009) were achieved in the overlap group. Compared with the end-to-side group, the overlap group achieved significantly earlier postoperative ambulation (1.0 [1.0, 2.0] days vs. 2.0 [1.0, 3.0] days, <i>Z</i>=3.117, <i>P</i>=0.002), earlier time to first drink (4.7±2.6 days vs. 6.2±3.0 days, <i>t</i>=2.851, <i>P</i>=0.005), and earlier time to first meal (6.0±2.7 days vs. 7.1±3.0 days, <i>t</i>=2.170, <i>P</i>=0.032). However, the hospitalization costs were higher in the overlap group (113, 105.5±37, 766.3) yuan vs. (97, 250.2±27, 746.9) yuan; this difference is significant (<i>t</i>=2.818, <i>P</i>=0.006). There were no significant differences between the two groups in postoperative hospital stay, total number of lymph nodes cleared, or time to first postoperative flatus (all <i>P</i>>0.05). The incidence of surgery-related complications was 22.9%(11/48) in the overlap group and 19.8% (18/91) in the end-to-side group; this difference is not significant (χ²=0.187, <i>P</i>=0.831). Further comparison of complications using the Clavien-Dindo classification also showed no significant differences (<i>Z</i>=0.406, <i>P</i>=0.685). <b>Conclusions:</b> Both laparoscopic total abdominal overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic-assisted end-to-side anastomosis are feasible for radical surgery for Siewert Type II esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma. Laparoscopic total abdominal overlap anastomosis achieves longer proximal and distal resection margins and better postoperative recovery; however, end-to-side anastomosis is more cost-effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":23959,"journal":{"name":"中华胃肠外科杂志","volume":"27 1","pages":"47-53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华胃肠外科杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn441530-20230913-00088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: In this study, we aimed to compare the short-term safety of two digestive tract reconstruction techniques, laparoscopic total abdominal overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic-assisted end-to-side anastomosis, following radical resection of Siewert Type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed relevant clinical data of 139 patients who had undergone radical surgery for Siewert Type II esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma. These included 89 patients treated at the First Affiliated Hospital of Air Force Medical University from November 2021 to July 2023, 36 patients treated at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University from December 2020 to June 2021, and 14 patients treated at the Yuncheng Central Hospital in Shanxi Province from September 2021 to November 2022. The group consisted of 107 men (77.0%) and 32 women (23.0%) of mean age 62.5±9.3 years. Forty-eight patients underwent laparoscopic total abdominal overlap anastomosis (overlap group), and 91 laparoscopic-assisted end-to-side anastomosis (end-to-side group). Clinical data, surgical information, pathological findings, postoperative recovery, and related complications were compared between the two groups. Results: There were no significant differences in general clinical data between the overlap and end-to-side anastomosis groups (all P>0.05), indicating comparability. There was no significant difference in operation time (267.2±60.1 minutes vs. 262.8±70.6 minutes, t=0.370, P=0.712). However, the intraoperative blood loss in the overlap group (100 [50, 100] mL) was significantly lower compared to the end-to-side group (100[50, 175] mL, Z=2.776, P=0.005). Compared to the end-to-side group, longer distances between the tumor and distal resection margin proximal(1.7±1.0 cm vs. 1.3±0.9 cm, t=2.487, P=0.014) and the tumor and distal resection margin (9.5±2.9 cm vs. 7.9±3.5 cm, t=2.667, P=0.009) were achieved in the overlap group. Compared with the end-to-side group, the overlap group achieved significantly earlier postoperative ambulation (1.0 [1.0, 2.0] days vs. 2.0 [1.0, 3.0] days, Z=3.117, P=0.002), earlier time to first drink (4.7±2.6 days vs. 6.2±3.0 days, t=2.851, P=0.005), and earlier time to first meal (6.0±2.7 days vs. 7.1±3.0 days, t=2.170, P=0.032). However, the hospitalization costs were higher in the overlap group (113, 105.5±37, 766.3) yuan vs. (97, 250.2±27, 746.9) yuan; this difference is significant (t=2.818, P=0.006). There were no significant differences between the two groups in postoperative hospital stay, total number of lymph nodes cleared, or time to first postoperative flatus (all P>0.05). The incidence of surgery-related complications was 22.9%(11/48) in the overlap group and 19.8% (18/91) in the end-to-side group; this difference is not significant (χ²=0.187, P=0.831). Further comparison of complications using the Clavien-Dindo classification also showed no significant differences (Z=0.406, P=0.685). Conclusions: Both laparoscopic total abdominal overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic-assisted end-to-side anastomosis are feasible for radical surgery for Siewert Type II esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma. Laparoscopic total abdominal overlap anastomosis achieves longer proximal and distal resection margins and better postoperative recovery; however, end-to-side anastomosis is more cost-effective.

[切除食管胃交界处 Siewert II 型腺癌时两种吻合技术短期安全性的比较:一项多中心回顾性队列研究]。
研究目的本研究旨在比较两种消化道重建技术(腹腔镜全腹重叠吻合术和腹腔镜辅助端侧吻合术)在食管胃交界处 Siewert II 型腺癌根治性切除术后的短期安全性。方法在这项回顾性队列研究中,我们分析了 139 名接受 Siewert II 型食管胃交界处腺癌根治术患者的相关临床数据。其中包括 2021 年 11 月至 2023 年 7 月在空军军医大学第一附属医院接受治疗的 89 例患者,2020 年 12 月至 2021 年 6 月在西安交通大学第一附属医院接受治疗的 36 例患者,以及 2021 年 9 月至 2022 年 11 月在山西省运城市中心医院接受治疗的 14 例患者。这组患者包括 107 名男性(77.0%)和 32 名女性(23.0%),平均年龄(62.5±9.3)岁。48例患者接受了腹腔镜全腹重叠吻合术(重叠组),91例患者接受了腹腔镜辅助端侧吻合术(端侧组)。比较了两组患者的临床数据、手术信息、病理结果、术后恢复情况和相关并发症。结果重叠吻合组和端侧吻合组的一般临床数据无明显差异(均P>0.05),具有可比性。手术时间无明显差异(267.2±60.1 分钟 vs. 262.8±70.6 分钟,t=0.370,P=0.712)。然而,重叠组的术中失血量(100 [50, 100] mL)明显低于端侧组(100[50, 175] mL, Z=2.776, P=0.005)。与端侧组相比,重叠组肿瘤与远端切除缘近端距离(1.7±1.0 cm vs. 1.3±0.9 cm,t=2.487,P=0.014)和肿瘤与远端切除缘距离(9.5±2.9 cm vs. 7.9±3.5 cm,t=2.667,P=0.009)更长。与端侧组相比,重叠组的术后行走时间明显提前(1.0 [1.0, 2.0] 天 vs. 2.0 [1.0, 3.0] 天,Z=3.117,P=0.002)、首次饮水时间提前(4.7±2.6 天 vs. 6.2±3.0天,t=2.851,P=0.005)和首次进餐时间提前(6.0±2.7 天 vs. 7.1±3.0天,t=2.170,P=0.032)。然而,重叠组的住院费用(113,105.5±37,766.3)元对(97,250.2±27,746.9)元,差异有显著性(t=2.818,P=0.006)。两组在术后住院时间、清除淋巴结总数、术后首次排气时间等方面无明显差异(均P>0.05)。重叠组的手术相关并发症发生率为 22.9%(11/48),端侧组为 19.8%(18/91);差异不显著(χ²=0.187,P=0.831)。使用 Clavien-Dindo 分类法对并发症进行进一步比较后发现,差异也不显著(Z=0.406,P=0.685)。结论:腹腔镜全腹重叠吻合术和腹腔镜辅助端侧吻合术均可用于Siewert II型食管胃交界处腺癌的根治手术。腹腔镜全腹重叠吻合术可获得更长的近端和远端切除边缘,术后恢复也更好;然而,端侧吻合术更具成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
中华胃肠外科杂志
中华胃肠外科杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6776
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信