ObjectiveTo compare the antireflux effects of lip reinforcement, His angle reconstruction with fundoplication, and mechanical anastomosis only in mechanical anastomosis for esophageal and cardiac carcinoma. MethodsOne hundred and seventysix patients with esophageal or cardiac carcinoma admitted to this hospital between March 2008 and October 2009 were included, which were divided into mechanical anastomosis group (n=42), His angle reconstruction group(n=56), and lip reinforcement group (n=78) according to the sequence of admission. Mechanical anastomosis only, mechanical anastomosis His angle reconstruction with fundoplication, and mechanical anastomosis liptype reinforcement were performed in the corresponding group, respectively. Endoscopy and biopsy were conducted to evaluate the antireflux effects on 3 months after operation. ResultsThere were no differences on the gender, age, tumor location, anastomosis site, and incision among three groups (Pgt;0.05). The reflux rates of the mechanical anastomosis group, His angle reconstruction group, and lip reinforcement group were 69.05%, 28.57%, and 14.10%, respectively. The reflux rates in the lip reinforcement group and His angle reconstruction group were significantly lower than those in the mechanical anastomosis group (χ2=37.088, P=0.000; χ2=15.833, P=0.000), moreover, the rate in the lip reinforcement group was significantly lower than that in the His angle reconstruction group (χ2=4.241, P=0.039). There was no anastomotic leakage in the lip reinforcement group and all patients safely discharged from hospital after surgery, only 2 patients had moderately anastomotic stenosis and both of them had good recovery with endoscopic dilatationl. The reflux after operation was independent of anastomosis sites (Pgt;0.05). ConclusionBoth liptype reinforcement and His angle reconstruction can improve the ability of antireflux, liptype reinforcement is better and simple to mainpulate.
ObjectiveTo compare the complication morbidity of mechanical and hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomosis systemically. MethodsMedline (January 1960 to June 2015), EMbase (January 1980 to June 2015), Cochrane Library (January 1996 to June 2015), Web of Science (January 1980 to June 2015) and other databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about comparing the complication morbidity of hand-sewn and mechanical anastomosis. Moreover, the references were searched by search engines such as Google Scholar. Papers were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. And then the data were extracted. The quality of current meta-analysis was assessed by GRADE profiler 3.6 software. The meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 12.0 software. ResultsA total of 1 611 patients in 14 RCTs were reviewed. The results suggested that the anastomatic leakage rate of mechanical method showed no significant difference from that of hand-sewn method[RR=1.07, 95%CI (0.76, 1.51), P=0.699]. While the anastomatic stenosis rate was even higher[RR=1.59, 95%CI (1.21, 2.09), P=0.001]. ConclusionMechanical method can't reduce the anastomotic leakage rate following esophagogastrostomy, while it maybe increase the risk of anastomotic stenosis on the contrary. The patients' physical condition should be considered when surgeons make the choice.