Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China.
J Surg Oncol. 2021 Dec;124(8):1329-1337. doi: 10.1002/jso.26642. Epub 2021 Aug 25.
Regarding the overlap anastomosis and recently introduced π-shaped anastomosis, there is no consensus on which intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy (EJS) methods are preferred using linear stapler in totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG). This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes using two methods.
Patients with upper gastric cancer underwent TLTG with either π-shaped (n = 48) or the modified overlap method using knotless barbed sutures (MOBS) (n = 37) were included in our study. Intraoperative and perioperative outcomes were compared.
All patients achieved R0 resection margin. The overall esophagojejunal (E-J)-related complications rate was 7.06%. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications, margin distance, numbers of lymph nodes (LNs), length of stay. In the π-shaped group, anastomosis time (19.61 ± 7.17 min vs. 27.09 ± 3.59 min, p < 0.001) was significantly lower. The consumable costs for surgery were similar (44 507.74¥ [42 933.03-46 937.29] vs. 43 718.36¥ [42 743.25-47 256.06], p = 0.825). The first defection time was significantly longer in π-shaped group (131.00 h [93.75-171.25] vs. 100.00 h [85.00-120.00], p = 0.026), whereas the other postoperative recovery parameters were similar. No mortality was observed.
Both methods showed similar short-term postoperative outcomes. The π-shaped technique was faster than the MOBS method without significantly increasing the supplies costs. Large prospective studies are warranted.
对于重叠吻合和最近引入的π形吻合,在使用直线吻合器进行全腹腔镜全胃切除术中(TLTG),哪种腔内食管空肠吻合(EJS)方法更优尚无共识。本研究旨在评估两种方法的短期结果。
纳入接受 TLTG 治疗的上部胃癌患者,其中 48 例采用 π 形吻合(π 组),37 例采用无结扣带刺缝线改良重叠法(MOBS)(MOBS 组)。比较两组患者的术中及围手术期结果。
所有患者均达到 R0 切除边缘。总的食管空肠(E-J)相关并发症发生率为 7.06%。两组患者术后并发症、切缘距离、淋巴结数量(LNs)、住院时间均无显著差异。在 π 组中,吻合时间(19.61±7.17 分钟 vs. 27.09±3.59 分钟,p<0.001)显著降低。手术耗材费用相似(44507.74¥ [42933.03-46937.29] vs. 43718.36¥ [42743.25-47256.06],p=0.825)。π 组首次排便时间明显延长(131.00 小时 [93.75-171.25] vs. 100.00 小时 [85.00-120.00],p=0.026),但其他术后恢复参数相似。无死亡病例。
两种方法的短期术后结果相似。π 形吻合技术比 MOBS 方法更快,而不会显著增加耗材成本。需要进行更大规模的前瞻性研究。