Cargando…
Anastomotic techniques for oesophagectomy for malignancy: systematic review and network meta‐analysis
BACKGROUND: Current evidence on the benefits of different anastomotic techniques (hand‐sewn (HS), circular stapled (CS), triangulating stapled (TS) or linear stapled/semimechanical (LSSM) techniques) after oesophagectomy is conflicting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the evidence for the tech...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7397345/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32445431 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50298 |
_version_ | 1783565759820070912 |
---|---|
author | Kamarajah, S. K. Bundred, J. R. Singh, P. Pasquali, S. Griffiths, E. A. |
author_facet | Kamarajah, S. K. Bundred, J. R. Singh, P. Pasquali, S. Griffiths, E. A. |
author_sort | Kamarajah, S. K. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Current evidence on the benefits of different anastomotic techniques (hand‐sewn (HS), circular stapled (CS), triangulating stapled (TS) or linear stapled/semimechanical (LSSM) techniques) after oesophagectomy is conflicting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the evidence for the techniques for oesophagogastric anastomosis and their impact on perioperative outcomes. METHODS: This was a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically for randomized and non‐randomized studies reporting techniques for the oesophagogastric anastomosis. Network meta‐analysis of postoperative anastomotic leaks and strictures was performed. RESULTS: Of 4192 articles screened, 15 randomized and 22 non‐randomized studies comprising 8618 patients were included. LSSM (odds ratio (OR) 0·50, 95 per cent c.i. 0·33 to 0·74; P = 0·001) and CS (OR 0·68, 0·48 to 0·95; P = 0·027) anastomoses were associated with lower anastomotic leak rates than HS anastomoses. LSSM anastomoses were associated with lower stricture rates than HS anastomoses (OR 0·32, 0·19 to 0·54; P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: LSSM anastomoses after oesophagectomy are superior with regard to anastomotic leak and stricture rates. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7397345 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73973452020-08-06 Anastomotic techniques for oesophagectomy for malignancy: systematic review and network meta‐analysis Kamarajah, S. K. Bundred, J. R. Singh, P. Pasquali, S. Griffiths, E. A. BJS Open Systematic Reviews BACKGROUND: Current evidence on the benefits of different anastomotic techniques (hand‐sewn (HS), circular stapled (CS), triangulating stapled (TS) or linear stapled/semimechanical (LSSM) techniques) after oesophagectomy is conflicting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the evidence for the techniques for oesophagogastric anastomosis and their impact on perioperative outcomes. METHODS: This was a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically for randomized and non‐randomized studies reporting techniques for the oesophagogastric anastomosis. Network meta‐analysis of postoperative anastomotic leaks and strictures was performed. RESULTS: Of 4192 articles screened, 15 randomized and 22 non‐randomized studies comprising 8618 patients were included. LSSM (odds ratio (OR) 0·50, 95 per cent c.i. 0·33 to 0·74; P = 0·001) and CS (OR 0·68, 0·48 to 0·95; P = 0·027) anastomoses were associated with lower anastomotic leak rates than HS anastomoses. LSSM anastomoses were associated with lower stricture rates than HS anastomoses (OR 0·32, 0·19 to 0·54; P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: LSSM anastomoses after oesophagectomy are superior with regard to anastomotic leak and stricture rates. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2020-05-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7397345/ /pubmed/32445431 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50298 Text en © 2020 The Authors. BJS Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Journal of Surgery Society This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Reviews Kamarajah, S. K. Bundred, J. R. Singh, P. Pasquali, S. Griffiths, E. A. Anastomotic techniques for oesophagectomy for malignancy: systematic review and network meta‐analysis |
title | Anastomotic techniques for oesophagectomy for malignancy: systematic review and network meta‐analysis |
title_full | Anastomotic techniques for oesophagectomy for malignancy: systematic review and network meta‐analysis |
title_fullStr | Anastomotic techniques for oesophagectomy for malignancy: systematic review and network meta‐analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Anastomotic techniques for oesophagectomy for malignancy: systematic review and network meta‐analysis |
title_short | Anastomotic techniques for oesophagectomy for malignancy: systematic review and network meta‐analysis |
title_sort | anastomotic techniques for oesophagectomy for malignancy: systematic review and network meta‐analysis |
topic | Systematic Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7397345/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32445431 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50298 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kamarajahsk anastomotictechniquesforoesophagectomyformalignancysystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT bundredjr anastomotictechniquesforoesophagectomyformalignancysystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT singhp anastomotictechniquesforoesophagectomyformalignancysystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT pasqualis anastomotictechniquesforoesophagectomyformalignancysystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT griffithsea anastomotictechniquesforoesophagectomyformalignancysystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis |