Different types of oesophageal reconstructions in the contemporary era: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Muireann Keating, Matthew G Davey, William Murray, Eamon Franics, Noel E Donlon
{"title":"Different types of oesophageal reconstructions in the contemporary era: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Muireann Keating, Matthew G Davey, William Murray, Eamon Franics, Noel E Donlon","doi":"10.1007/s11845-025-04073-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Oesophageal reconstruction is a complex operation that continues to present a surgical challenge associated with significant morbidity and its associated sequelae. The conventional gastric conduit remains the gold standard reconstructive technique when available. Alternative conduits for oesophageal replacement become necessary when the stomach is unavailable with common options for conduit creation being the jejunum and the colon. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to interrogate outcomes in oesophageal reconstruction with gastric pull-up, colonic interposition and jejunal flap.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS) was undertaken. An NMA as per the PRISMA-NMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was carried out using R and Shiny.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In a total of 19 studies, 3927 patients were included; 79.5% (3123/3927) of patients underwent gastric pull-up; 13.5% (531/3927) of patients underwent colonic interposition; 7% (273/3927) of patients underwent jejunal flap as their reconstructive method. At NMA, there was no significant difference in anastomotic leak rates, mortality rates, stricture formation, necrosis and length of stay between the three reconstructive techniques. Trend results showed jejunal flap performed better than colonic interposition in length of stay and mortality rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>At present, the gastric conduit is the conventional and first choice for oesophageal reconstruction ab initio after oesophagostomy. Colonic interposition and jejunal free flap represent viable options and are associated with non-inferior short-term surgical outcomes when gastric pull-up is not available or feasible.</p>","PeriodicalId":14507,"journal":{"name":"Irish Journal of Medical Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irish Journal of Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-025-04073-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Oesophageal reconstruction is a complex operation that continues to present a surgical challenge associated with significant morbidity and its associated sequelae. The conventional gastric conduit remains the gold standard reconstructive technique when available. Alternative conduits for oesophageal replacement become necessary when the stomach is unavailable with common options for conduit creation being the jejunum and the colon. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to interrogate outcomes in oesophageal reconstruction with gastric pull-up, colonic interposition and jejunal flap.

Methods: A systematic review of three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS) was undertaken. An NMA as per the PRISMA-NMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was carried out using R and Shiny.

Results: In a total of 19 studies, 3927 patients were included; 79.5% (3123/3927) of patients underwent gastric pull-up; 13.5% (531/3927) of patients underwent colonic interposition; 7% (273/3927) of patients underwent jejunal flap as their reconstructive method. At NMA, there was no significant difference in anastomotic leak rates, mortality rates, stricture formation, necrosis and length of stay between the three reconstructive techniques. Trend results showed jejunal flap performed better than colonic interposition in length of stay and mortality rates.

Conclusion: At present, the gastric conduit is the conventional and first choice for oesophageal reconstruction ab initio after oesophagostomy. Colonic interposition and jejunal free flap represent viable options and are associated with non-inferior short-term surgical outcomes when gastric pull-up is not available or feasible.

不同类型的食道重建在当代:一个系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。
食道重建术是一项复杂的手术,持续呈现出与显著发病率及其相关后遗症相关的手术挑战。在可行的情况下,传统的胃导管仍然是金标准的重建技术。当胃不可用时,有必要用空肠和结肠来替代食管导管。本系统综述和网络荟萃分析的目的是探讨胃上拉、结肠介入和空肠皮瓣在食管重建中的效果。方法:对PubMed、EMBASE和SCOPUS三个电子数据库进行系统综述。根据PRISMA-NMA指南的NMA。采用R和Shiny进行统计分析。结果:19项研究共纳入3927例患者;79.5%(3123/3927)的患者行胃上拉;13.5%(531/3927)的患者行结肠介入;7%(273/3927)患者行空肠皮瓣重建。在NMA,三种重建技术在吻合口漏率、死亡率、狭窄形成、坏死和住院时间方面无显著差异。趋势结果显示,空肠皮瓣在住院时间和死亡率方面优于结肠介入皮瓣。结论:胃导管是目前食道造口术后从头重建的首选和常规方法。结肠介入和空肠游离皮瓣是可行的选择,并与非劣质短期手术结果相关,当胃上拉不可用或不可行的。
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
Irish Journal of Medical Science
Irish Journal of Medical Science 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
357
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Irish Journal of Medical Science is the official organ of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland. Established in 1832, this quarterly journal is a contribution to medical science and an ideal forum for the younger medical/scientific professional to enter world literature and an ideal launching platform now, as in the past, for many a young research worker. The primary role of both the Academy and IJMS is that of providing a forum for the exchange of scientific information and to promote academic discussion, so essential to scientific progress.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信