Esophagectomy with gastroplasty in advanced megaesophagus: late results of omeprazole use

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LATE RESULTS OF CERVICAL ESOPHAGOGASTRIC ANASTOMOSIS BY MANUAL AND MECHANICAL SUTURE IN PATIENTS SUBMITTED TO ESOPHAGEAL MUCOSECTOMY THROUGH ADVANCED MEGAESOPHAGUS

Background:

Among the anastomoses of the gastrointestinal tract, those of the esophagus are of special interest due to several anatomical or even general peculiarities.

Aim:

Evaluate retrospectively the results comparing mechanical vs. manual suture at cervical esophagogastric anastomosis in megaesophagus treatment.

Methods:

Were included 92 patients diagnosed with advanced megaesophagus with clinical conditions to undergo the surgery. All underwent esophageal mucosectomy, performing anastomosis of the esophagus stump with the gastric tube at the cervical level. In order to make this anastomosis, the patients were divided into two groups: group A (n=53) with circular mechanical suture, lateral end; group B (n=39) with manual suture in two sides, lateral end. In the postoperative period, an early evaluation was performed, analyzing local and systemic complications and late (average 5.6 y) analyzing deglutition.

Results:

Early evaluation: a) dehiscence of esophagogastric anastomosis n=5 (9.4%) in group A vs. n=9 (23.0%) in group B (p=0.0418); b) stenosis of esophagogastric anastomosis n=8 (15.1%) in group A vs. n=15 (38.4%) in group B (p=0.0105.); c) pulmonary infection n=5 (9.4%) in group A vs. n=3 (7.6%) in group B (p=1.0000.); d) pleural effusion n=5 (9.4%) in group A vs. n=6 (15.4%) in group B (p<0.518). Late evaluation showed that 86.4-96% of the patients presented the criteria 4 and 5 from SAEED, expressing effective swallowing mechanisms without showing significant differences among the groups.

Conclusion:

Cervical esophagogastric anastomosis by means of mechanical suture is more proper than the manual with lower incidence of local complications and, in the long-term evaluation, regular deglutition was acquired in both suture techniques in equal quality.

MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VS. TRANSHIATAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY IN ACHALASIA: A RANDOMIZED STUDY

BACKGROUND

Open and laparoscopic trans-hiatal esophagectomy has been successfully performed in the treatment of megaesophagus. However, there are no randomized studies to differentiate them in their results.

AIM

To compare the results of minimally invasive laparoscopic esophagectomy (EMIL) vs. open trans-hiatal esophagectomy (ETHA) in advanced megaesophagus.

METHOD

A total of 30 patients were randomized, 15 of them in each group - EMIL and ETHA. The studied variables were dysphagia score before and after the operation at 24-months follow-up; pain score in the immediate postoperative period and at hospital discharge; complications of the procedure, comparing each group. Were also studied: surgical time in minutes, transfusion of blood products, length of hospital stay, mortality and follow-up time.

RESULTS

ETHA group comprised eight men and seven women; in the EMIL group, four women and 11 men. The median age in the ETHA group was 47.2 (29-68) years, and in the EMIL group of 44.13 (20-67) years. Mean follow-up time was 33 months, with one death in each group, both by fatal aspiration. There was no statistically significant difference between the EMIL vs. ETHA scores for dysphagia, pain and in-hospital complications. The same was true for surgical time, transfusion of blood products and hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference between EMIL and ETHA in all the studied variables, thus allowing them to be considered equivalent.