[Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy: outcomes]

Esophageal mucosal resection versus esophagectomy: a comparative study of surgical results in patients with advanced megaesophagus

BACKGROUND

The surgical treatment of advanced megaesophagus has no consensus, being esophagectomy the more commonly used method. Since it has high morbimortality--inconvenient for benign disease -, in recent years an alternative has been introduced: the esophageal mucosal resection.

AIM

To compare early and late results of the two techniques evaluating the operative time, length of ICU stay; postoperative hospitalization; total hospitalization; intra- and postoperative complication rates; mortality; and long-term results.

METHODS

Were evaluated retrospectively 40 charts, 23 esophagectomies and 17 mucosectomies. In assessing postoperative results, interviews were conducted by using a specific questionnaire.

RESULTS

Comparing the means of esophagectomy and mucosal resection, respectively, the data were: 1) surgical time--310.2 min and 279.7 min (p > 0.05); 2) length of stay in ICU--5 days and 2.53 days (p <0.05); 3) total time of hospitalization--24.25 days and 20.76 days (p> 0.05); 4) length of hospital stay after surgery--19.05 days and 14.94 days (p> 0.05); 5) presence of intraoperative complications--65% and 18% (p <0.05); 6) the presence of postoperative complications - 65% and 35% (p> 0.05). In the assessment of late postoperative score (range 0-10) esophagectomy (n = 5) obtained 8.8 points and 8.8 points also got mucosal resection (n = 5).

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal mucosal resection proved to be good alternative for surgical treatment of megaesophagus. It was advantageous in the immediate postoperative period by presenting a lower average time in operation, the total hospitalization, ICU staying and complications rate. In the late postoperative period, the result was excellent and good in both operations.

Esophagogastric anastomosis with invagination into stomach: New technique to reduce fistula formation

AIM: To present a new technique of cervical esophagogastric anastomosis to reduce the frequency of fistula formation.

METHODS: A group of 31 patients with thoracic and abdominal esophageal cancer underwent cervical esophagogastric anastomosis with invagination of the proximal esophageal stump into the stomach tube. In the region elected for anastomosis, a transverse myotomy of the esophagus was carried out around the entire circumference of the esophagus. Afterwards, a 4-cm long segment of esophagus was invaginated into the stomach and anastomosed to the anterior and the posterior walls.

RESULTS: Postoperative minor complications occurred in 22 (70.9%) patients. Four (12.9%) patients had serious complications that led to death. The discharge of saliva was at a lower region, while attempting to leave the anastomosis site out of the alimentary transit. Three (9.7%) patients had fistula at the esophagogastric anastomosis, with minimal leakage of air or saliva and with mild clinical repercussions. No patients had esophagogastric fistula with intense saliva leakage from either the cervical incision or the thoracic drain. Fibrotic stenosis of anastomoses occurred in seven (22.6%) patients. All these patients obtained relief from their dysphagia with endoscopic dilatation of the anastomosis.

CONCLUSION: Cervical esophagogastric anastomosis with invagination of the proximal esophageal stump into the stomach tube presented a low rate of esophagogastric fistula with mild clinical repercussions.

[Comparative study of end-to-end cervical esophagogastric anastomosis with or without invagination after esophagectomy for cancer]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence of fistula and stenosis of cervical esophagogastric anastomosis with invagination of the esophageal stump into the gastric tube in esophagectomy for esophagus cancer.

METHODS

Two groups of patients with thoracic and abdominal esophagus cancer undergoing esophagectomy and esophagogastroplasty were studied. Group I comprised 29 patients who underwent cervical esophagogastric anastomosis with invagination of the proximal esophageal stump segment within the stomach, in the period of 1998 to 2007 while Group II was composed of 36 patients submitted to end-to-end cervical esophago-gastric anastomosis without invagination during the period of 1989 to 1997.

RESULTS

In Group I, esophagogastric anastomosis by invagination presented fistula with mild clinical implications in 3 (10.3%) patients, whereas in Group II, fistulas with heavy saliva leaks were observed in 11 (30.5%) patients. The frequency of fistulas was significantly lower in Group I patients (p=0.04) than in Group II. In Group I, fibrotic stenosis of anastomoses occurred in 7 (24.1%) subjects, and 10 patients (27.7%) in Group II evolved with stenosis, while no significant difference (p=0.72) was found between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In esophagectomy for esophagus cancer, cervical esophagogastric anastomosis with invagination presented a lower rate of esophagogastric fistula versus anastomosis without invagination. Stenosis rates in esophagogastric anastomosis proved similar in both approach with or without invagination.