Totally Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer at a Single Institutional Experience and Changes in Technique of Esophagojejunostomy

Short-term outcomes of different esophagojejunal anastomotic techniques during laparoscopic total gastrectomy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Different techniques have been described for esophagojejunostomy (EJ) during laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for gastric cancer. Linear stapled techniques include overlap (OL) and functional end-to-end anastomosis (FEEA) while single staple technique (SST), hemi-double staple technique (HDST), and OrVil® are circular stapled approaches. Nowadays, the choice among techniques for EJ depends on operating surgeon personal preference.

PURPOSE

To compare short-term outcomes of different EJ techniques during LTG.

METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analysis. OL, FEEA, SST, HDST, and OrVil® were compared. Primary outcomes were anastomotic leak (AL) and stenosis (AS). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to measure relative inference.

RESULTS

Overall, 3177 patients (20 studies) were included. The technique for EJ was SST (n = 1026; 32.9%), OL (n = 826; 26.5%), FEEA (n = 752; 24.1%), OrVil® (n = 317; 10.1%), and HDST (n = 196; 6.4%). AL was comparable for OL vs. FEEA (RR = 0.82; 95% CrI 0.47-1.49), OL vs. SST (RR = 0.55; 95% CrI 0.27-1.21), OL vs. OrVil® (RR = 0.54; 95% CrI 0.32-1.22), and OL vs. HDST (RR = 0.65; 95% CrI 0.28-1.63). Similarly, AS was similar for OL vs. FEEA (RR = 0.46; 95% CrI 0.18-1.28), OL vs. SST (RR = 0.89; 95% CrI 0.39-2.15), OL vs. OrVil® (RR = 0.36; 95% CrI 0.14-1.02), and OL vs. HDST (RR = 0.61; 95% CrI 0.31-1.21). Anastomotic bleeding, time to soft diet resumption, pulmonary complications, hospital length of stay, and mortality were comparable while operative time was reduced for FEEA.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis shows similar postoperative AL and AS risk when comparing OL, FEEA, SST, HDST, and OrVil® techniques. Similarly, no differences were found for anastomotic bleeding, operative time, soft diet resumption, pulmonary complications, hospital length of stay and 30-day mortality.

Linear- Versus Circular-Stapled Esophagojejunostomy During Total Gastrectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: While numerous techniques have been defined for esophagojejunostomy (EJ) during total gastrectomy including hand-sewn and stapled anastomoses, mechanical linear-stapled (LS) and circular-stapled (CS) anastomoses are widely adopted. However, there are scarce data on the optimal stapled technique for EJ during total gastrectomy. Materials and Methods: Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed were investigated up to October 30, 2022. We considered articles that appraised short-term outcomes after LS versus CS anastomosis in patients undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Anastomotic leak (AL), anastomotic stricture (AS), and anastomotic bleeding (AB) were primary outcomes. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to calculate related inference. Results: Sixteen studies (3156 patients) were incorporated. Overall, 1540 (48.8%) underwent CS, whereas 1616 (51.2%) underwent LS. Compared with CS, LS was related to a condensed RR for AS (RR: 0.27; 95% CI 0.15-0.49; P < .01), whereas no differences were found for AL (RR: 0.75; 95% CI 0.51-1.10; P = .14) and AB (RR: 0.59; 95% CI 0.24-1.44; P = .25). Postoperative pneumonia (RR: 0.98; P = .94), operative time (SMD: 0.51; P = .31), days to soft diet (SMD: -0.08; P = .36), hospital stay (SMD: 0.19; P = .46), and 30-day mortality (RR: 1.76; P = .31) were comparable between LS and CS. Conclusions: For EJ during total gastrectomy, our results suggest that LS seems related to a reduced risk of AS compared with CS, although no significant differences were found for the risk of AL and AB between the two techniques. Clinical Trial Registration number: CRD42022381221.

Comparison of the safety and efficacy between linear stapler and circular stapler in totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Total gastrectomy is often recommended for upper body gastric cancer, and totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) is deemed to be a promising surgical method with the well-known advantages such as less invasion and fast recovery. However, the anastomosis between oesophagus and jejunum is the difficulty of TLTG. Although staplers have promoted the development of TLTG, the choice of suitable staplers to complete oesophagojejunostomy is controversial and unclear. Therefore, a higher level of research evidence is needed to compare the two types of staplers in terms of safety and efficacy for oesophagojejunostomy in TLTG among patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Databases will be comprehensively searched from January 1990 to July 2019. All eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs or observational studies comparing the two types of staplers will be included. A meta-analysis will be performed using Review Manager V.5.3 software to compare the safety and efficacy of linear and circular staplers for oesophagojejunostomy in TLTG. The primary outcomes are anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, anastomotic haemorrhage. The secondary outcomes include time to first instance of passing gas after surgery, first feeding time, total operation time, reconstruction time, estimated blood loss. The heterogeneity of this study will be assessed by p values and I² statistic. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses will be used to explore and explain the heterogeneity. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval will not be required because this proposed systematic review and meta-analysis is based on previously published data, which does not include intervention data on patients. The findings of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at a relevant congress.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018111680.