Open Access

Comparison of a modified one‑piece mechanical and double‑layer hand‑sewn anastomosis in McKeown esophagogastrectomy: A single‑institute retrospective study

  • Authors:
    • Kunshou Zhu
    • Jiulong Zhang
    • Xiaohui Chen
    • Yujie Deng
    • Shaofeng Lin
    • Yibin Cai
    • Guibin Weng
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: May 12, 2021     https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2021.2296
  • Article Number: 134
  • Copyright: © Zhu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

The present study aimed to introduce a novel method of cervical esophagogastric anastomosis, so‑called ‘modified one‑piece mechanical anastomosis’ (MOMA) in McKeown esophagogastrectomy and to compare its feasibility, efficacy and safety with those of ‘conventionally double‑layer hand‑sewn anastomosis’ (CDHA). Between March 2016 and March 2018, 80 consecutive patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing McKeown esophagogastrectomy with a curative intent were included in the present study. Among them, 40 received MOMA and the other 40 received CDHA. Their medical records, including operation time, anastomotic time, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications within 30 days, as well as survival rate, were retrospectively reviewed, analyzed and compared. Total operation time, anastomotic time and estimated blood loss in the MOMA group were significantly decreased compared with those in the CDHA group (207.73±2.66 vs. 225.40±3.43 min; 10.95±0.44 vs. 23.03±0.47 min; 144.50±21.14 vs. 241.75±23.75 ml; all P<0.01). Anastomotic leakage was present in 1 patient in the CDHA group, but no patients in the MOMA group (P=1.000). Anastomotic stenosis was documented in 4 and 2 patients in the MOMA and CDHA group, respectively (P=0.392). The 30‑day operative mortality was 0% and no significant difference was demonstrated in postoperative complications within groups (P>0.05). Furthermore, the disease‑free and overall survival was compared by means of Kaplan‑Meier survival estimates and log‑rank tests and no statistical difference was determined (P=0.5114 and P=0.7875, respectively). McKeown esophagogastrectomy with MOMA may be a feasible, effective and reproducible alternative with relatively satisfactory postoperative outcomes for the treatment of TE‑SCC, providing shorter operation and anastomosis times, and less estimated intraoperative blood loss.

Introduction

Carcinoma of the esophagus is one of the most lethal neoplasms worldwide (1,2). In China, however, it ranks among the top 3 most common malignancies, demonstrating an incidence of nearly 5 million and claiming a cancer-related death of around 4 million per year, turning out a major health threat (3,4). Quite different from the situation in western countries that most esophageal cancer evolving from Barrett's esophagus and demonstrating a major histoloty of adenocarcinoma, situation in China is that squamous cell carcinoma predominates in more than 95% EC patients. However, accounting for nearly 95% of all cases in China, most esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) locates in the intrathoracic portion and surgical resection remains the preferred modality of radical treatment, especially for the early- or mid-staged lesions (5). After esophagectomy, reconstruction using a gastric conduit is the most common procedure (6), although various other anastomotic techniques have been demonstrated (7-10). However, reconstruction surgery following resection of the esophagus is frequently associated with occurrence of anastomotic leakage. Once it occurs, patients suffered decreased quality of life, protracted hospitalization or even death. This is why there were many innovations and modifications in reconstructive surgery including functional end-to-end stapling, triangulating stapling, T-shaped linear stapling, pre-embedded stapling, and so forth (11-15).

Although efficacy of mechanical anastomosis had been reported previously (12,16,17), much effort had still been tried to better off the clinical outcome and simplify the procedure (18,19). Chen et al (20) reported that use of pleural flaps in the upper mediastinum would reduce the incidence of cervical subcutaneous emphysema and anastomotic leakage into pleural cavity. Sugimura et al (8) introduced a modified Collard anastomosis which would be more effective in the reduction of anastomotic stenosis. Sun et al (21) demonstrated an embedded three-layer esophagogastric anastomotic maneuvre which would facilitating the reduction of morbidity as well as improvement of short-term outcomes. In the present study we introduced a novel method of cervical esophagogastric anastomosis, so-called ‘modified one-piece mechanical anastomosis (MOMA)’ in McKeown esophagogastrectomy and compared its feasibility, efficacy and safety with conventionally double-layer hand-sewn anastomosis (CDHA). We made a minor modification based on the traditional mechanical anastomosis (TMA). We hypothesized non-inferiority when comparing MOMA to CDHA, and in our early practical experience MOMA had been proven feasible, and would significantly speed up the surgical procedure in abdominal phase and cervical anastomosis.

Patients and methods

Study design and patients

From March 2016 to March 2018, 96 consecutive patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the Department of Thoracic Surgery of Fujian Cancer Hospital and Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital were hospitalized and preoperatively evaluated for the eligibility for surgical resection. As a result, 80 of them met the criteria and were enrolled. All patients were diagnosed by gastroscopy and pathologically proven, no surgical contraindications had been demonstrated and no patient had suffered from a double cancer. The surgical criteria for thoracic esophageal cancer is cT1-4aN0-1M0. Forty patients received a modified anastomotic (MOMA) and the other 40 conventionally hand-sewn maneuver (CDHA). Resections were carried out by 2 different surgical teams (MOMA by X. Chen, J. Zhang and G. Weng and CDHA by K. Zhu, S. Lin and Y. Cai), while patients were treated with the same perioperative regimen in process of hospitalization. The screening items included: Complete blood count (CBC), comprehensive chemistry profile, esophageal barium swallow, upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and biopsy and chest/upper abdomen computed tomography (CT) with intravenous (IV) contrast. The histopathologic features of cancerous specimens were classified in accordance with the 8th AJCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer) criteria on esophageal cancer (22,23), and the TNM staging system as well (24). Patients receiving induction chemotherapy, however, would not undergo surgery until down-staging was achieved and surgical indication was met. Clinicopathologic parameters including age, gender, smoking status, Brinkman index, ECOG score, history of gastric surgery, cellular histology, preoperative weight loss, body mass index (BMI), preoperative albumin, preoperative BUN, tumor location, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) (25), pathologic TNM stage, follow-up data and history of neoadjuvant therapy and postoperative therapy were collected. Intraoperative characteristics like thoracic duct ligation, pyloric emptying procedure, jejunostomy, length of hospital stay, total operation time, time of anastomosis, estimated blood loss, total chest/gastric tube retention time, total chest/gastric tube drainage volume and number of resected/metastasized lymph nodes (r/m LNs). Patients' surgical outcome information included resection margin, blood transfusion, postoperative pneumonitis, anastomotic leakage/stenosis, postoperative arrhythmia, bleeding, gastric conduit palsy/tearing, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, chylothorax, 30-day re-admission and mortality. The final follow-up date was September 24, 2019. The study protocol was approved by the Human Ethics Review Committee of Fujian Cancer Hospital and Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, and a signed informed consent was obtained from each patient.

Surgical approaches

The operation began with a thoracic phase by open right thoracotomy, in which resection of the tumor together with lymphadenectomy was carried out. An open abdominal phase followed, in which the stomach was prepared and then brought up through the chest into the neck for a circular end-to-end stapled anastomosis, with the proximal stomach conduit at the apex of the pleural cavity.

Dissection of the esophagus was initiated from the mediastinal visceral pleura at the inferior margin of arch of azygos vein with ultrasonic shears, moving down from the posterior and then to the anterior wall of the esophagus. After the azygos vein was transected, the dissection was continued up into the upper mediastinum, carefully preserving both sides of the bronchial arteries and thoracic duct, and keeping from injuring both sides of recurrent laryngeal nerves (RLNs) while dissecting the suspicious metastatic lymph nodes nearby.

At the end of esophagectomy, the patient was repositioned to supine position. Gastric mobilization as well as preparation of gastric conduit was then carried out in an open manner. For MOMA group, gastric mobilization was initiated from the middle at the greater curvature of stomach on the greater omentum, with a distance of ≥2 cm from the arch of gastroepiploic vessels (Fig. 1A, arrow ①), firstly moving clockwise to the starting point of the right gastroepiploic artery, then anticlockwise to dissect the left gastroepiploic, splenogastric, short gastric and retrogastric vessels. After removal of No. 18 and 19 LNs, the left gastric vessels together with No. 17 LN were then dissected. The omental bursa was opened, with the lesser curvature of the stomach and the esophagogastric conjunction well dissected and fully released. Then the right gastric vessels was ligated at the level of 3rd or 4th branch from the rightmost (Fig. 1A, arrow ② and 1B, arrow ①), the stomach was then cut from the ligation/start point (Fig. 1A, arrow ② and 1B, arrow ②) along with the lesser curvature (Fig. 1C and D) to the endpoint (Fig. 1A, arrow ③ and 1E, arrow) at ≤3 cm (Fig. 1A, arrow ④, marked as yellow thick line) to the cardia without full transection at the esophagogastric junction with endocutter, making the stomach a thin gastric conduit of around 3.5 cm in diameter (Fig. 1F, arrow) and ensuring the adequate length for the replacement of resected esophagus. Then some stitches were placed to ensure the security of the gastric conduit, and the uppermost stitch (Fig. 1E, arrow) was used as a landmark to indicate the cutting margin of remnant gastric conduit later.

A straight incision was made in front of the sternocleidomastoid muscle in the left neck, after removal of 1L LNs, the cervical esophagus was freed. The gastric conduit, together with the dissected esophagus and cut lesser curvature of the stomach, was pulled up from the abdomen into the neck through hiatus, esophageal bed in the retromediastinum and then inlet of thoracic cage, carefully not to have it torn. After an appropriate size of anvil (all Johnson & Johnson, and size of stapler used was as followed: no. 21 in 23 patients and no. 25 in 17 patients) was inserted and well placed (Fig. 2A, arrow ①), an incision was made at the lesser curvature site on the esophagogastric junction for the entrance of stapler shaft (Fig. 2A, site of ultrasonic shears cut). Then a circular end-to-end stapled anastomosis was accomplished (Fig. 2B, arrow showing the anastomosis) with the anastomotic site on the posterior wall of gastric conduit and close to the greater curvature to ensure better blood flow. The remnant gastric conduit was transected at least 3 cm afar off from the anastomotic line, i.e., along with the line of marked stitch (Fig. 2C, arrow showing the marking stitch), ensuring the adequate blood supply (Fig. 2D, arrow ① for anastomosis and ② for transecting line, distance within them should be ≥3 cm).

For the CDHA group, all the other procedures were identical except that during the preparation of gastric conduit, the lesser curvature of the stomach was fully transected without preserving the remnant part of the lesser curvature (Fig. 1A, arrow ④, marked as yellow thick line), then the gastric conduit was pulled up to the neck and a conventional double-layer hand-sewn anastomosis was carried out with 4-0 Mersilk in an interrupted manner in both layers.

In the patients without jejunostomy, a nasojejunal feeding tube were inserted to ensure that enteral alimentation was started in the early postoperative period.

Definition of postoperative complications and follow-up

Patients routinely underwent postoperative gastrointestinal endoscopy at 12 months if complaints of symptoms such as dysphagia arise. In this study, anastomotic stricture is defined as a condition that requires balloon dilation at the stenotic anastomosis within 90 postoperative days (PODs), with endoscopic proof of a stenosis through which a 9-mm endoscope cannot be passed. Anastomotic leakage is defined as the presence of extraluminal contrast by postoperative CT after swallowing contrast medium, endoscopic visualization of dehiscence or fistula, or flow of saliva or pus through the cervical wound within 30 PODs. If pus was discovered from the cervical wound with uncertain anastomotic leakage found, patients undergo a contrast medium swallow study and a CT study after open drainage of the cervical wound to confirm the existence of anastomotic leakage. Other overall postoperative morbidities are redefined as greater than grade II by the Clavien-Dindo classification. Follow-up appointments for all patients took place at 1, 3, 6, 12 and then every 6 months following surgery at Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital. All patients would be followed up to 5 years or until death.

Statistical analysis

All data were analyzed by SPSS 23.0 (SPSS, Inc.). The quantitative data were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared using the unpaired Student's t-test. The counting data were expressed by frequency or rate, and the comparison between groups was carried out by Pearson's χ2 or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. All patients received a follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test was used for estimating and comparing probability of unadjusted disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) within groups. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Basic characteristics of study population

Ninety-six consecutive patients were screened and 80 patients with thoracic esophageal cancer were enrolled and received surgery from April 2016 through March 2018 (Table I). The average age for CDHA and MOMA groups was 63.53±1.14 and 61.58±0.85 years old, respectively (P=0.173). Except for preoperative albumin (P=0.029), no statistical difference had been demonstrated in the items of gender, smoker, Brinkman index, ECOG score, preoperative BUN, BMI, preoperative weight loss, tumor location, ASA classification, Charlson comorbidity index, induction therapy, postoperative radiotherapy, postoperative chemotherapy, pathologic TNM staging, nerve involvement or vascular invasion (Table I, all P>0.05).

Table I

Basic characteristics of study population (n=80).

Table I

Basic characteristics of study population (n=80).

VariablesCDHA (n=40)MOMA (n=40) t/χ2P-value
Age, years (mean ± SD)63.53±1.1461.58±0.851.3750.173
Sex, n  0.8530.356
     Male2723  
     Female1317  
Smoker, n  2.4520.117
     Yes2417  
     No1623  
Brinkman index (mean ± SD)435.00±60.29305.00±64.051.4780.143
Average follow-up, months24.7018.58/NA
ECOG, n  />0.999
     ≤14040  
     >100  
BMI, kg/m2 (mean ± SD)21.34±0.4122.33±0.481.5540.124
Preoperative albumin, g/l (mean ± SD)38.03±0.5340.04±0.732.2190.029
Preoperative BUN, g/l (mean ± SD)5.21±0.245.17±0.24-0.1410.888
Preoperative weight loss, na  0.7340.392
     >0, ≤5 kg3638  
     >5, ≤10 kg42  
Tumor location, n  2.0400.361
     Upper64  
     Middle2825  
     Lower611  
ASA classification, n  0.3920.531
     II3533  
     III57  
CCI, n  0.2510.617
     ≤31210  
     >32830  
Induction therapy, na  3.1270.077
     Yes3935  
     No15  
Postoperative RT, na  3.1270.077
     Yes51  
     No3539  
Postoperative CT, n  1.8670.172
     Yes116  
     No2934  
pTNM staging, n  0.4870.485
     0-II2427  
     III1613  
Nerve involvement, n  0.000>0.999
     Yes77  
     No3333  
Vascular invasion, n  2.9900.084
     Yes158  
     No2532  

[i] aUsing Fisher's exact test. Continuous data are presented as the mean CDHA, conventionally double-layer hand-sewn anastomosis; MOMA, modified One-piece mechanical anastomosis; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; LNs, lymph nodes; RT, radiotherapy; CT, chemotherapy; NA, not available.

Intraoperative characteristics

All patients received Mckeown procedure with different anastomotic ways. As shown in Table II, all patients in both groups received open thoracotomy and laparotomy. Although number of patients receiving thoracic duct ligation (8 vs. 17, P=0.030) and jejunotomy (14 vs. 31, P<0.001) in the CDHA and MOMA groups was various, no significant difference had been demonstrated in the following items: Pyloric emptying procedure, length of hospital stay (25.35±1.29 vs. 24.40±1.16 days, P=0.586), chest tube retention time (9.80±0.68 vs. 11.15±0.52 days, P=0.119), total chest tube drainage (2517.90±469.05 vs. 2715.35±298.77 ml, P=0.724), gastric tube retention time (10.35±0.39 days vs. 11.58±0.51 d, P=0.059), total gastric tube drainage (1568.55±182.01 vs. 1738.70±170.54 ml, P=0.497), average resected LNs (22.43±1.75 vs. 24.83±1.62, P=0.317) or metastasized LNs (0.93±0.28 vs. 0.95±0.25, P=0.946). It's of note that in comparison to the CDHA group, total operation time (207.73±2.66 vs. 225.40±3.43 min, P<0.001) and time of anastomosis (10.95±0.44 vs. 23.03±0.47 min, P<0.001) were significantly shorter and the estimated blood loss was obviously less (144.50±21.14 ml vs. 241.75±23.75 min, P=0.003). The average follow-up time in CDHA and MOMA groups was 24.70 and 18.58 months, respectively, both longer than one year.

Table II

Intraoperative characteristics (n=80).

Table II

Intraoperative characteristics (n=80).

ParametersCDHA (n=40)MOMA (n=40) t/χ2P-value
TD ligation, n  4.7130.030
     Yes817  
     No3223  
Pyloric emptying procedure, n  /NA
     None4040  
     Balloon dilation00  
Jejunostomy, n  14.679<0.001
     Yes1431  
     No269  
Length of hospital stay, days (mean ± SD)25.35±1.2924.40±1.160.5470.586
Total operation time, min (mean ± SD)225.40±3.43207.73±2.664.067<0.001
Time of anastomosis, min (mean ± SD)23.03±0.4710.95±0.4418.781<0.001
Estimated blood loss, ml (mean ± SD)241.75±23.75144.50±21.143.0590.003a
Chest tube retention time, days (mean ± SD)9.80±0.6811.15±0.521.5750.119
Total chest tube drainage, ml (mean ± SD)2517.90±469.052715.35±298.770.3550.724
Gastric tube retention time, days (mean ± SD)10.35±0.3911.58±0.511.9170.059
Total gastric tube drainage, ml (mean ± SD)1568.55±182.011738.70±170.540.6820.497
Average resected LNs (mean ± SD)22.43±1.7524.83±1.621.0070.317
Metastasized LNs (mean ± SD)0.93±0.280.95±0.250.0670.946

[i] CDHA, conventionally double-layer hand-sewn anastomosis; MOMA, modified One-piece mechanical anastomosis; TD, thoracic duct; LN, lymph node; NA, not available.

Patients' surgical outcome

The perioperative surgical outcomes of patients within 30 PODs were indicated in Table III. Briefly, in the CDHA and MOMA groups, 37 and 39 patients achieved R0 resection margin (P=0.294), 11 and 10 patients received blood transfusion (P=0.799), 9 and 8 patients had postoperative pneumonitis (P=0.785), 1 and 0 patient suffered anastomotic leakage (P=1.000), 2 and 4 patients suffered anastomotic stenosis (P=0.392), 5 and 3 had postoperative arrhythmia (P=0.454), 0 and 1 patient suffered bleeding (P=1.000), 4 and 3 patients suffered gastric conduit palsy (P=0.692), 0 and 2 patients suffered gastric conduit tearing (P=0.494), 6 and 8 patients suffered recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (P=0.556), 1 and 1 patient suffered chylothorax (P=1.000), 3 and 2 patients had 30-day re-admission (P=0.643) and none had 90-day mortality, respectively. After comparing their DFS and OS, no statistical difference had been demonstrated within these two groups (Fig. 3A and B; P=0.5114 and 0.7875, respectively).

Table III

Perioperative surgical outcome (n=80).

Table III

Perioperative surgical outcome (n=80).

ParametersCDHA, n (n=40)MOMA, n (n=40)χ2P-value
Resection margin  1.0990.294
     R03739  
     R131  
Blood transfusion  0.0650.799
     Yes1110  
     No2930  
Pneumonitis  0.0750.785
     Yes98  
     No3132  
Anastomotic leakagea  />0.999
     Yes10  
     No3940  
Anastomotic stenosis  0.7340.392
     Yes24  
     No3836  
Arrhythmia  0.5610.454
     Yes53  
     No3537  
Bleedinga  />0.999
     Yes01  
     No4039  
GC palsy  0.1570.692
     Yes43  
     No3637  
GC tearinga  /0.494
     Yes02  
     No4038  
RLN palsy  0.3460.556
     Yes68  
     No3432  
Chylothoraxa  />0.999
     Yes11  
     No3939  
30-day re-admission  0.2150.643
     Yes32  
     No3738  
90-day mortality00/NA

[i] aUsing Fisher's exact test. CDHA, conventionally double-layer hand-sewn anastomosis; MOMA, modified One-piece mechanical anastomosis; RLN, recurrent laryngeal nerve; GC, gastric conduit; NA, not available.

Discussion

Esophagectomy remains the gold standard in the treatment of esophageal cancer with curative intent. However, this operation is complicated and associated with high morbidity and mortality (26-29). Anastomosis-related complications especially anasomotic leakage is one of the most lethal comorbidies, usually resulting in pyothorax, mediastinitis, tracheal fistula, arterial fistula or septicemia, and ending up with multiple organ failure eventually. In order to achieve satisfactory esophagogastric anastomosis, much effort had been tried either to optimize the anasomotic procedure (18,19,30-37), to better off the blood flow at the anastomotic site on the grafted conduits (11,38,39), or to manage prophylactic measurements to ensure the confinement of inflammation and facilitate the healing in case of leakage (20,21).

In the present study we evaluated the utility of MOMA and compared it with CDHA in cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after sub-total esophagectomy in TE-SCC patients. Major modifications of MOMA lie in gastric conduit preparation and anastomotic maneuver, without fully transecting the lesser curvature while preserving it for no longer than 3 cm at the conjunctional part and pulling the conduit up to the neck to fulfill a circular end-to-end stapled anastomosis, quite different from conventional way by transecting the gastroesophageal junction with the continuation of extracorporeal gastroplasty by fully cutting off the lesser curvature of stomach (40,41). As could be expected and eventually testified in our study that this modification would firstly simplify the procedure of gastric conduit preparation and esophagogastric anastomosis by avoiding the action of transecting lower esophagus and making pulling-up stitches at the apex of gastric conduit, and secondly decrease the amount of hemorrhage although it would probably be due only to the shorter duration of the operation, especially hand-sewn cervical anastomosis (40-43).

Major clinical findings in our study indicated that in comparison to CDHA, time consumption in total operation and anastomosis in MOMA group was statistically shortened, and therefore estimated blood loss was reduced accordingly. However, anastomosis-related complications like anastomotic leakage and stricture bore no difference within these two maneuvers. Recently, Li et al (19) reported a T-shaped linear-stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis in a sample size of 32 patients, demonstrating a time consumption in anastomosis at 17.6 min, which was much longer than ours. Furthermore, their anastomotic method was similar with the triangulating anastomosis, which was reported to have higher rate of leakage at the site of staple overlapping (17).

Besides the beneficiary aspects mentioned above, analyses demonstrated no different incidence of postoperative complications like pneumonitis, arrhythmia, bleeding, gastric conduit palsy, RLN palsy, chylothorax, 30-day re-admission and mortality (all P>0.05) in both groups. However, it should be noticed that there were 2 patients suffering from the gastric conduit tearing at the endpoint on the lesser curvature because of the inadequate cutting. As a result, the gastric conduits had to be returned to the abdomen to get the torn part fixed, re-cut and pulled up to the neck again. So, we had to address the importance that in the MOMA procedure the remnant part of the gastroesophageal junction left should not be longer than 3 cm lest the conduit gets torn in process of being pulled up into the neck. In addition, before the gastric conduit was about to be pulled up, adequate muscle relaxant should be administered and transient respiratory cessation could be used to ensure the safety of pulling-up action. As most causes of anastomotic leakage were likely due to gastric conduit compression and congestion of the gastric conduit stump caused by the sternoclavicular joint of the thoracic inlet, therefore, when the width of the thoracic inlet was less than three fingerbreadths, the left sternoclavicular joint was resected and the thoracic inlet was dilated to ensure the adequate space for the passover of the gastric conduit. After taking these factors into account, our early experience confirmed the feasibility and safety of this procedure.

Some limitation of this study should be noted. With a retrospective study at a sample-size of 40 in each group, although the results supported the feasibility of MOMA maneuver, further study is necessary to validate the efficacy and safety of this procedure. In addition, in order to facilitate proving the feasibility, open procedure was used in both groups to compare MOMA and CDHA, however, with the global acceptance of minimally invasive procedure and traditional mechanical anastomosis (TMA) (44), further study would be designated to compare MOMA and TMA, and even the effectiveness of MOMA in both minimally invasive settings.

In conclusion, MOMA suggests a feasible, effective and reproducible alternative in McKeown esophagogastrectomy for the treatment of TE-SCC, providing significantly shorter operation and anastomosis time, and less estimated intraoperative blood loss as well.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Junqiang Chen and Professor Jiancheng Li from the Department of Radiotherapic Oncology (Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, China) for their kind help in the process of the study and paper writing.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' contributions

KZ and XC conceived and designed the study. KZ provided administrative support. KZ, JZ, XC, YD, SL, YC and GW provided study materials or patients. JZ, XC, YD, SL and YC collected and assembled the data. KZ, JZ, XC, YD, SL, YC and GW analyzed and interpreted the data. KZ and XC were responsible for confirming the authenticity of the raw data and the paper itself. All authors wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by the Human Ethics Review Committee of Fujian Cancer Hospital and Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital (Fuzhou, China), and written informed consent was obtained from each patient.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1 

Miller KD, Nogueira L, Mariotto AB, Rowland JH, Yabroff KR, Alfano CM, Jemal A, Kramer JL and Siegel RL: Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 69:363–385. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

2 

Siegel RL, Miller KD and Jemal A: . Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 69:7–34. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

3 

Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, Zhang S, Zeng H, Bray F, Jemal A, Yu XQ and He J: Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 66:115–132. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

4 

Tu CC and Hsu PK: The frontline of esophageal cancer treatment: Questions to be asked and answered. Ann Transl Med. 6(83)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

5 

Okamura A, Watanabe M, Imamura Y, Hayami M, Yuda M, Yamashita K, Shoji Y and Mine S: Cervicothoracoscopic approach in esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 25(333)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

6 

Constantinoiu S, Achim F and Constantin A: Use of the stomach in esophageal reconstructive surgery in era of minimally invasive approach. Chirurgia (Bucur). 113:809–825. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

7 

Tsuji T, Ojima T, Nakamori M, Nakamura M, Katsuda M, Hayata K, Kitadani J, Maruoka S, Shimokawa T and Yamaue H: Triangulating stapling vs functional end-to-end stapling for cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 20(83)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

8 

Sugimura K, Miyata H, Matsunaga T, Asukai K, Yanagimoto Y, Takahashi Y, Tomokuni A, Yamamoto K, Hirofumi A, Nishimura J, et al: Comparison of the modified Collard and hand-sewn anastomosis for cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients: A propensity score-matched analysis. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 3:104–113. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

9 

Song YN, Qi Y, Zhang CY, Sheng YL, Wu K, Zhu SL, Han L, Shan TT, Ye GC, Zhang QY, et al: A new technology for reducing anastomotic fistula in the neck after esophageal cancer surgery. J Thorac Dis. 11:3084–3092. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

10 

Yasuda T, Shiraishi O, Iwama M, Makino T, Kato H and Kimura Y: Novel esophageal reconstruction technique via transmediastinal route from posterior to anterior mediastinum after esophagectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 156:859–866. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

11 

Shimakawa T, Naritaka Y, Asaka S, Miyazawa M, Murayama M, Yamaguchi K, Usui T, Yokomizo H, Yoshimatsu K, Shiozawa S and Katsube T: Innovations for cervical esophagogastrostomy in thoracic esophageal cancer operations. Anticancer Res. 38:2323–2327. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

12 

Wang ZQ, Jiang YQ, Xu W, Cai HR, Zhang Z, Yin Z and Zhang Q: A novel technique for cervical gastro-oesophageal anastomosis during minimally invasive oesophagectomy. Int J Surg. 53:221–229. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

13 

Lin TH and Huang PM: Early postoperative endoscopy for evaluation of the anastomosis after esophageal reconstruction. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 66:376–383. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

14 

Yuan Y, Zeng XX, Zhao YF and Chen LQ: Modified double-layer anastomosis for minimally invasive esophagectomy: An effective way to prevent leakage and stricture. World J Surg. 41:3164–3170. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

15 

Markar SR, Arya S, Karthikesalingam A and Hanna GB: Technical factors that affect anastomotic integrity following esophagectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 20:4274–4281. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

16 

Worrell S, Mumtaz S, Tsuboi K, Lee TH and Mittal SK: Anastomotic complications associated with stapled versus hand-sewn anastomosis. J Surg Res. 161:9–12. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

17 

Li J, Shen Y, Tan L, Feng M, Wang H, Xi Y, Leng Y and Wang Q: Cervical triangulating stapled anastomosis: Technique and initial experience. J Thorac Dis. 6 (Suppl 3):S350–S354. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

18 

Li J, Wang B, Liang T, Guo NN and Zhao M: Pre-embedded cervical circular stapled anastomosis in esophagectomy. Thorac Cancer. 11:723–727. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

19 

Li X, Wang Z, Zhang G, Fu J and Wu Q: T-shaped linear-stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis for minimally invasive esophagectomy: A pilot study. Tumori. 106:506–509. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

20 

Chen X, Liu S, Chen P, He H and Wang F: Application of pleural flaps in laparoscopic-thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. J Thorac Dis. 12:973–979. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

21 

Sun HB, Li Y, Liu XB, Zhang RX, Wang ZF, Zheng Y, Qin JJ, Li HM, Chen XK and Wu Z: Embedded three-layer esophagogastric anastomosis reduces morbidity and improves short-term outcomes after esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 101:1131–1138. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

22 

Konda P, Ai D, Guerra CE, Rodriguez-Restrepo A, Mehran RJ, Rice D, Hofstetter W, Heir J, Kwater P, Gottumukkala V, et al: Identification of risk factors associated with postoperative acute kidney injury after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 31:474–481. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

23 

Oweira H, Schmidt J, Mehrabi A, Kulaksiz H, Schneider P, Schöb O, Giryes A and Abdel-Rahman O: Validation of the eighth clinical American joint committee on cancer stage grouping for esophageal cancer. Future Oncol. 14:65–75. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

24 

Rice TW: Esophageal cancer staging. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 48:157–163. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

25 

Yamashita K, Watanabe M, Mine S, Fukudome I, Okamura A, Yuda M, Hayami M and Imamura Y: The impact of the Charlson comorbidity index on the prognosis of esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy with curative intent. Surg Today. 48:632–639. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

26 

Yen YC, Chang JH, Lin WC, Chiou JF, Chang YC, Chang CL, Hsu HL, Chow JM, Yuan KS, Wu ATH and Wu SY: Effectiveness of esophagectomy in patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma receiving definitive radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy through intensity-modulated radiation therapy techniques. Cancer. 123:2043–2053. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

27 

Yamashita K, Makino T, Yamasaki M, Tanaka K, Hara T, Miyazaki Y, Takahashi T, Kurokawa Y, Nakajima K, Takiguchi S, et al: Comparison of short-term outcomes between 2- and 3-field lymph node dissection for esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. 30:1–8. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

28 

Yamashita H, Seto Y, Takenaka R, Okuma K, Kiritooshi T, Mori K, Yamada K, Fukuda T, Kaminishi M, Abe O and Nakagawa K: Survival comparison between radical surgery and definitive chemoradiation in 267 esophageal squamous cell carcinomas in a single institution: A propensity-matched study. PLoS One. 12(e0177133)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

29 

Jamieson GG, Mathew G, Ludemann R, Wayman J, Myers JC and Devitt PG: Postoperative mortality following oesophagectomy and problems in reporting its rate. Br J Surg. 91:943–947. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

30 

Kamiya K, Unno N, Miyazaki S, Sano M, Kikuchi H, Hiramatsu Y, Ohta M, Yamatodani T, Mineta H and Konno H: Quantitative assessment of the free jejunal graft perfusion. J Surg Res. 194:394–399. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

31 

Deng XF, Liu QX, Zhou D, Min JX and Dai JG: Hand-sewn vs linearly stapled esophagogastric anastomosis for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 21:4757–4764. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

32 

Wang J, Yao F, Yao J, Xu L, Qian JL and Shan LM: 21-versus 25-mm circular staplers for cervical anastomosis: A propensity-matched study. J Surg Res. 246:427–434. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

33 

Gao HJ, Mu JW, Pan WM, Brock M, Wang ML, Han B and Ma K: Totally mechanical linear stapled anastomosis for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Operative technique and short-term outcomes. Thorac Cancer. 11:769–776. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

34 

Zhan B, Chen J, Du S, Xiong Y and Liu J: Using the hand-sewn purse-string stapled anastomotic technique for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 67:578–584. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

35 

Wang F, Zhang H, Zheng Y, Wang Z, Geng Y and Wang Y: Intrathoracic side-to-side esophagogastrostomy with a linear stapler and barbed suture in robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. J Surg Oncol. 120:1142–1147. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

36 

Valmasoni M, Capovilla G, Pierobon ES, Moletta L, Provenzano L, Costantini M, Salvador R and Merigliano S: A technical modification to the circular stapling anastomosis technique during minimally invasive Ivor Lewis procedure. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 29:1585–1591. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

37 

Schroder W, Raptis DA, Schmidt HM, Gisbertz SS, Moons J, Asti E, Luyer MDP, Hölscher AH, Schneider PM, van Berge Henegouwen MI, et al: Anastomotic techniques and associated morbidity in total minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy: Results from the EsoBenchmark database. Ann Surg. 270:820–826. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

38 

Goense L, Meziani J, Bülbül M, Braithwaite SA, van Hillegersberg R and Ruurda JP: Pulmonary diffusion capacity predicts major complications after esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. 32(doy082)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

39 

Zheng X, Yang YS, Hu WP, Xiao X, Luan SY, Chen LQ and Yuan Y: Coniform gastric tube for end-to-end anastomosis during minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 109:e297–e300. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

40 

Wang F, Liu S, Wang J, Chen X, Zheng Q, Wang Z, Xu J and Chen S: Comparison of the stapled suture with the manual suture in the application of minimally invasive esophagectomy. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 17:881–883. 2014.PubMed/NCBI(In Chinese).

41 

Chen X, Chen J, Zheng X, Chen Y, Lin Y, Zheng Q, Zhu K and Pan J: Prognostic factors in patients with thoracic esophageal carcinoma staged pT1-4aN0M0 undergone esophagectomy with three-field lymphadenectomy. Ann Transl Med. 3(282)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

42 

Liu YJ, Fan J, He HH, Zhu SS, Chen QL and Cao RH: Anastomotic leakage after intrathoracic versus cervical oesophagogastric anastomosis for oesophageal carcinoma in Chinese population: A retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 8(e021025)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

43 

Shang QX, Chen LQ, Hu WP, Deng HY, Yuan Y and Cai J: Three-field lymph node dissection in treating the esophageal cancer. J Thorac Dis. 8:E1136–E1149. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

44 

Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Meunier B, Pezet D, Collet D, D'Journo XB, Brigand C, Perniceni T, Carrère N, et al: Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 380:152–162. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

Related Articles

Journal Cover

July-2021
Volume 15 Issue 1

Print ISSN: 2049-9450
Online ISSN:2049-9469

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Zhu K, Zhang J, Chen X, Deng Y, Lin S, Cai Y and Weng G: Comparison of a modified one‑piece mechanical and double‑layer hand‑sewn anastomosis in McKeown esophagogastrectomy: A single‑institute retrospective study. Mol Clin Oncol 15: 134, 2021
APA
Zhu, K., Zhang, J., Chen, X., Deng, Y., Lin, S., Cai, Y., & Weng, G. (2021). Comparison of a modified one‑piece mechanical and double‑layer hand‑sewn anastomosis in McKeown esophagogastrectomy: A single‑institute retrospective study. Molecular and Clinical Oncology, 15, 134. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2021.2296
MLA
Zhu, K., Zhang, J., Chen, X., Deng, Y., Lin, S., Cai, Y., Weng, G."Comparison of a modified one‑piece mechanical and double‑layer hand‑sewn anastomosis in McKeown esophagogastrectomy: A single‑institute retrospective study". Molecular and Clinical Oncology 15.1 (2021): 134.
Chicago
Zhu, K., Zhang, J., Chen, X., Deng, Y., Lin, S., Cai, Y., Weng, G."Comparison of a modified one‑piece mechanical and double‑layer hand‑sewn anastomosis in McKeown esophagogastrectomy: A single‑institute retrospective study". Molecular and Clinical Oncology 15, no. 1 (2021): 134. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2021.2296