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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kamarajah, S. K., Bundred, J. R., Singh, P., Pasquali, S., Griffiths, E. A.
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