Law S, Fok M, Chu K M, Wong J
Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital.
Ann Surg. 1997 Aug;226(2):169-73. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199708000-00008.
The objective of this study was to compare the hand-sewn and stapled methods in esophagogastric anastomosis.
After esophageal resection for cancer, the relative merits of the hand-sewn and the stapled methods of esophagogastric anastomosis, especially regarding leakage and stricture rates, have not adequately been studied.
A prospective randomized controlled trial was undertaken in 122 patients with squamous cell cancer of the thoracic esophagus who underwent a Lewis-Tanner esophagectomy. Patients were stratified according to esophageal size, based on the diameter of the divided esophagus (< or > or = 30 mm) and then were randomized to have either a hand-sewn or a stapled anastomosis.
The mean total operating times (standard error of the mean) when the hand-sewn and the stapled methods were used were 214 (4) minutes and 217 (3.4) minutes, respectively (p = not significant [NS]). The respective in vivo proximal resection margins (standard error of the mean) were 8 (0.4) cm and 7.6 (0.4) cm (p = NS). Leakage rates were 1.6% and 4.9% (p = NS). Excluding hospital deaths, patients with leakage or anastomotic recurrence, and those who received radiation therapy to histologically infiltrated resection margin, anastomotic stricture was found in 5 (9.1%) of 55 patients in the hand-sewn group and 20 (40%) of 50 in the stapler group (p = 0.0003). The difference in stricture rates was significant in small as well as large esophagi. Anastomotic recurrence developed in only one patient in each group.
The authors conclude that both methods were safe, but the stapled technique resulted in more stricture formation.
本研究的目的是比较食管胃吻合术中手工缝合和吻合器吻合两种方法。
食管癌切除术后,食管胃吻合术中手工缝合和吻合器吻合两种方法的相对优缺点,尤其是关于漏出率和狭窄率,尚未得到充分研究。
对122例接受Lewis-Tanner食管切除术的胸段食管鳞状细胞癌患者进行了一项前瞻性随机对照试验。根据食管大小,以切断食管的直径(<或>或 = 30 mm)为依据对患者进行分层,然后随机分为接受手工缝合或吻合器吻合。
使用手工缝合和吻合器吻合方法时,平均总手术时间(平均标准误)分别为214(4)分钟和217(3.4)分钟(p = 无显著差异[NS])。各自的体内近端切缘(平均标准误)分别为8(0.4)cm和7.6(0.4)cm(p = NS)。漏出率分别为1.6%和4.9%(p = NS)。排除医院死亡病例、有漏出或吻合口复发的患者以及对组织学浸润切缘接受放射治疗的患者,手工缝合组55例患者中有5例(9.1%)出现吻合口狭窄,吻合器组50例患者中有20例(40%)出现吻合口狭窄(p = 0.0003)。无论食管大小,狭窄率的差异均具有显著性。每组仅1例患者发生吻合口复发。
作者得出结论,两种方法均安全,但吻合器技术导致更多狭窄形成。