Circular versus linear stapling oesophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic prophylactic total gastrectomy with limited lymphadenectomy for CDH1 gene carriers

BACKGROUND

CDH1 gene mutations are the leading etiology of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer with cumulative lifetime risk ranging up to 83%. Prophylactic total gastrectomy (PTG) is, therefore, recommended for CDH1 carriers. A laparoscopic approach may reduce operative risk versus an open operation, thus leading more patients with CDH1 mutations to pursue PTG prior to cancer development. However, more experience and oncologic outcome data are needed for a laparoscopic approach and indicated lymphadenectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective descriptive cohort study of adult patients with CDH1 mutations who underwent laparoscopic PTG with D1 lymphadenectomy between 2012 and 2022 was conducted at a single institution. All patients had preoperative EGD screening, and those with visible tumor lesions on surveillance EGD were excluded and not considered prophylactic. Demographics, family history, pathology, and operative course were obtained. Outcomes included complications, readmission, and postoperative weight change.

RESULTS

Among 23 patients, median age was 48 years (IQR 37, 53) and 15 (65%) were female. Family history for gastric and/or lobular breast cancer was present in 22 (96%) patients. The median [IQR] time from positive genetic testing to PTG was 347 days [140, 625]. Pathologic evaluation showed five (22%) patients with foci of gastric cancer on pre-operative EGD biopsies, 10 (44%) in resected stomach specimens. All lymph nodes were negative. To address early postoperative complications, EJ anastomotic technique changed from EEA to GIA over the course of the study and feeding jejunostomy was no longer placed during PTG with minimal change in postoperative weight loss.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest series, spanning 10 years at a single institution, dedicated solely to a laparoscopic approach for risk-reducing PTG. A laparoscopic approach with limited lymphadenectomy resulted in acceptable surgical and oncologic outcomes. Despite no visible cancer, over half of our patients had foci of early gastric cancer. Therefore, CDH1 carriers should consider laparoscopic PTG.

Overlapping Esophagojejunostomy Using a Linear Stapler in Laparoscopic Total or Proximal Gastrectomy

Background: Performing an intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy during laparoscopic-assisted total or proximal gastrectomy is challenging. We developed an ingenious method of overlapping esophagojejunostomy using a linear stapler to avoid stapler-related intraoperative complications. Methods: Following lymph node dissection, the esophagus was transected anterior-posteriorly. A linear stapler was used to divide the jejunum ∼20 cm distal to the Treitz ligament. A small enterotomy was then created 5 cm distal to the elevated jejunal stump to insert the linear stapler cartridge. An electronic knife was used to make a full-thickness incision, with the tip of the nasogastric tube (NGT) pressed against the posterior wall of the esophageal stump as a guide. Full-thickness sutures were placed on both the anterior and posterior walls of the entry hole in the esophageal stump to prevent the anvil fork from being misinserted into the submucosal layer of the esophagus. The thread on the posterior wall was guided through the port to the outside of the abdominal cavity, where the linear stapler was inserted to perform the side-to-side anastomosis. A 45-mm cartridge fork and an anvil fork were inserted into the elevated jejunum and esophageal stump entry holes, respectively, following which the esophageal stump was gently grasped. The thread on the posterior wall side was pulled from outside the abdominal cavity through the port. This step is necessary to close the gap between the esophageal and jejunal walls. After confirming that the anvil fork was not misinserted into the submucosal layer of the esophagus and that there was no gap between the esophagus and the elevated jejunum, the linear stapler was fired to create the anastomosis. The insertion hole was closed with hand-sewn sutures or linear staples to complete the esophagojejunostomy. Results: Eleven patients underwent this procedure with no anastomotic complications. Conclusions: This method enables us to perform an easier and more stable esophagojejunostomy.

Endoscopic management of pseudo-lumen stapling following laparoscopic esophagojejunostomy: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Pseudo-lumen stapling can occur following an incidental submucosal introduction of a fork of the linear stapler into the esophageal side during esophagojejunostomy (EJS) after total gastrectomy. This leaves a mucosa-covered layer over the EJS site that can eventually cause an obstruction. If it is noticed intraoperatively, an immediate surgical take-down and repeat anastomosis might be chosen by most surgeons. However, these procedures might have side effects such as further dissection into the esophageal hiatus and unnecessary tension on the anastomosis. To our knowledge, no existing publication has presented a non-surgical management method for pseudo-lumen stapling.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 64-year-old male underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy with a pseudo-lumen stapling unnoticed during surgery. Upon its recognition on the third postoperative day, endoscopic release of the tissue covering the anastomosis was performed. The procedure was successful. Gastrographic examination on the sixth postoperative day confirmed a good passage of the contrast agent. Postoperative one-year endoscopic examination confirmed patent anastomosis without stenosis.

DISCUSSION

Although pseudo-lumen stapling is one of the most unwanted consequences of EJS using linear staplers, there is little information or documentation available as reference for cases encountered during clinical practice. This might be related to the tendency of surgeons to perform an immediate take-down, followed by repeat EJS when this is noticed during surgery. We were able to successfully overcome this problem without surgery following a series of early gastrographic and endoscopic procedures.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic release of the covering tissue should be considered a valid non-surgical solution to pseudo-lumen stapling.

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.