Suppr超能文献

全机械法与圆形吻合器法行微创食管切除术治疗颈段食管胃吻合术的比较

Totally mechanical Collard versus circular stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis for minimally invasive esophagectomy.

作者信息

Liu He, Shan Limei, Wang Jian, Zhai Rong, Zhu Yining, Yao Fei

机构信息

Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Jiangning Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, No. 168, Gushan Road, Jiangning District, Nanjing, 211100, Jiangsu Province, China.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2023 Feb;37(2):891-901. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09551-w. Epub 2022 Aug 29.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have proposed that the totally mechanical Collard (TMC) method may reduce anastomotic leakage and stricture. This study aimed to compare the TMC method and the circular stapled (CS) method for cervical anastomosis after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

From May 2017 to September 2020, 308 patients (165 in the CS group and 143 in the TMC group) were included in this study. The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage and anastomotic stricture within 12 months. Propensity score matching was used to control potential selection bias.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, and refractory stricture (≥ 3 dilations) occurred in 30 (9.7%), 28 (9.1%), and 18 (5.8%) patients, respectively. The rate of anastomotic leak was similar in the CS and TMC methods (9.7 vs. 9.8%; P = 0.978), but anastomotic stricture (3.5 vs. 13.9%; P = 0.001) and refractory stricture (2.8 vs. 9.1%, P = 0.022) occurred less frequently in the TMC method. Propensity score matching yielded 128 patient pairs and confirmed these results. Multivariable analyses found that CS method, anastomotic leakage, and diabetes were independent predictors for both anastomotic stricture and refractory stricture. Subgroup analysis revealed that for patients with anastomotic leakage, the postoperative hospital stay in the TMC group was significantly longer than that in the CS group.

CONCLUSION

In cervical anastomosis after MIE, the TMC method is superior to the CS method regarding anastomotic stricture and refractory stricture formation. However, compared to the CS method, the TMC method cannot lower the probability of anastomotic leakage, and anastomotic leakage with the TMC method requires a longer healing time.

摘要

背景

既往研究提出,全机械Collard(TMC)方法可能会减少吻合口漏和狭窄。本研究旨在比较食管癌微创食管切除术后(MIE)颈部吻合的TMC方法和圆形吻合器(CS)方法。

方法

2017年5月至2020年9月,本研究纳入了308例患者(CS组165例,TMC组143例)。主要终点为12个月内的吻合口漏和吻合口狭窄。采用倾向评分匹配法控制潜在的选择偏倚。

结果

分别有30例(9.7%)、28例(9.1%)和18例(5.8%)患者发生吻合口漏、吻合口狭窄和难治性狭窄(≥3次扩张)。CS方法和TMC方法的吻合口漏发生率相似(9.7%对9.8%;P = 0.978),但TMC方法的吻合口狭窄(3.5%对13.9%;P = 0.001)和难治性狭窄(2.8%对9.1%,P = 0.022)发生率较低。倾向评分匹配产生了128对患者并证实了这些结果。多变量分析发现,CS方法、吻合口漏和糖尿病是吻合口狭窄和难治性狭窄的独立预测因素。亚组分析显示,对于发生吻合口漏的患者,TMC组的术后住院时间明显长于CS组。

结论

在MIE术后颈部吻合中,TMC方法在吻合口狭窄和难治性狭窄形成方面优于CS方法。然而,与CS方法相比,TMC方法不能降低吻合口漏的概率,且TMC方法导致的吻合口漏愈合时间更长。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验