Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic total gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 12.5 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Shafquat Zaman, Mohammad Iqbal Hussain, Maria Kausar, Omar E S Mostafa, Ali Yasen Mohamedahmed, Shahab Hajibandeh, Shahin Hajibandeh, Ricardo Camprodon, Chaminda Sellahewa
{"title":"Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic total gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Shafquat Zaman, Mohammad Iqbal Hussain, Maria Kausar, Omar E S Mostafa, Ali Yasen Mohamedahmed, Shahab Hajibandeh, Shahin Hajibandeh, Ricardo Camprodon, Chaminda Sellahewa","doi":"10.1097/JS9.0000000000002296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To evaluate outcomes of intracorporeal (IOJ) versus extracorporeal (EOJ) oesophagojejunostomy following laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for the treatment of gastric cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of various electronic databases was conducted. Comparative studies of IOJ versus EOJ following LTG in patients with gastric malignancy were included. Primary outcomes were anastomotic leak, anastomotic bleeding, and anastomotic stricture formation. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of hospital stay (LOS), volume of intra-operative haemorrhage, number of harvested lymph nodes, time to flatus, time to soft diet, intra-abdominal infection, pulmonary infection, surgical site infection (SSI), duodenal stump leak, pancreatic fistula occurrence, postoperative ileus, re-operation, and mortality. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using the random-effects model, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen non-randomised studies enrolling 2,960 patients divided between an IOJ (n = 1430) and EOJ (n = 1530) group were included. IOJ was associated with significantly lower risk of anastomotic stricture (P = 0.01), volume of intra-operative bleeding (P = < 0.001), and SSI (P = 0.04) compared to EOJ. No difference was found in anastomotic leak (P = 0.93); anastomotic bleeding (P = 0.35); operative time (P = 0.63); LOS (P = 0.30); lymph node yield (P = 0.17); time to first flatus (P = 0.77); time to resumption of soft diet (P = 0.32); intra-abdominal infection (P = 0.22); pulmonary infection (P = 0.45); duodenal stump leak (P = 0.46); pancreatic fistula occurrence (P = 0.16); and paralytic ileus (P = 0.59), re-operation (P = 0.50), and mortality (P = 0.23) between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LTG for gastric malignancy with IOJ may be associated with lower risk of anastomotic stricture and SSI compared to the extracorporeal approach. However, future adequately powered randomized studies are needed to compare the two techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":14401,"journal":{"name":"International journal of surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000002296","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To evaluate outcomes of intracorporeal (IOJ) versus extracorporeal (EOJ) oesophagojejunostomy following laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for the treatment of gastric cancer.

Methods: A comprehensive search of various electronic databases was conducted. Comparative studies of IOJ versus EOJ following LTG in patients with gastric malignancy were included. Primary outcomes were anastomotic leak, anastomotic bleeding, and anastomotic stricture formation. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of hospital stay (LOS), volume of intra-operative haemorrhage, number of harvested lymph nodes, time to flatus, time to soft diet, intra-abdominal infection, pulmonary infection, surgical site infection (SSI), duodenal stump leak, pancreatic fistula occurrence, postoperative ileus, re-operation, and mortality. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using the random-effects model, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias.

Results: Seventeen non-randomised studies enrolling 2,960 patients divided between an IOJ (n = 1430) and EOJ (n = 1530) group were included. IOJ was associated with significantly lower risk of anastomotic stricture (P = 0.01), volume of intra-operative bleeding (P = < 0.001), and SSI (P = 0.04) compared to EOJ. No difference was found in anastomotic leak (P = 0.93); anastomotic bleeding (P = 0.35); operative time (P = 0.63); LOS (P = 0.30); lymph node yield (P = 0.17); time to first flatus (P = 0.77); time to resumption of soft diet (P = 0.32); intra-abdominal infection (P = 0.22); pulmonary infection (P = 0.45); duodenal stump leak (P = 0.46); pancreatic fistula occurrence (P = 0.16); and paralytic ileus (P = 0.59), re-operation (P = 0.50), and mortality (P = 0.23) between the two groups.

Conclusions: LTG for gastric malignancy with IOJ may be associated with lower risk of anastomotic stricture and SSI compared to the extracorporeal approach. However, future adequately powered randomized studies are needed to compare the two techniques.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Surgery (IJS) has a broad scope, encompassing all surgical specialties. Its primary objective is to facilitate the exchange of crucial ideas and lines of thought between and across these specialties.By doing so, the journal aims to counter the growing trend of increasing sub-specialization, which can result in "tunnel-vision" and the isolation of significant surgical advancements within specific specialties.
×
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