Evidence - Gastrointestinal anastomosis technique – Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy

  1. Literature summary

    Esophagojejunostomy (E-J) may be fashioned Roux-en-Y by hand or mechanically as a simple anastomosis or with pouch formation. There is no consensus as to which technique is preferable [1].

    The simple E-J may result in increased weight loss, reflux and dumping syndrome [2]. A pouch promotes better postoperative food intake and quality of life but is more frequently associated with reflux symptoms than the classical Roux-en-Y procedure. This requires adequate distance between the esophagus and the jejunojejunostomy [2].

    In long-term survivors the pouch procedure is functionally superior to simple Roux-en-Y reconstruction, since postgastrectomy symptoms are less severe and weight progression is more favorable [3]. When fashioning the pouch, the anastomosis should be completely subphrenic, i.e., within the abdominal cavity.

    In patients with poor overall prognosis, the end-to-side Roux-en-Y E-J should be favored as the technically simplest and fastest reconstruction and, due to its simplicity and safety, in these situations it is regarded as the standard technique [4].

    With failure rates around 1% the mechanical E-J is regarded as the gold standard [5]. It has similar results as the hand sewn anastomosis but is easier and faster to perform [6]. Staplers do not increase safety or reduce complication rates [5]; on the contrary, lack of practice may increase the complication rates, which in turn may be reduced by increased volume of this procedure [7].

    Cardiac tumors, splenectomy, long operating times and manual anastomosis may increase anastomotic failure. Pathogenic organisms have been demonstrated more often in anastomotic failure [8].

  2. Ongoing trials on this topic

  3. References on this topic

    1. Gabor S, Renner H, Matzi V et al (2005) Early enteral feeding compared with parenteral nutrition after oesophageal or oesophagogastric resection and reconstruction. Br J Nutr 93(4):509–513

    2. Law S, Suen DT, Wong KH et al (2005) A single-layer, continuous, hand-sewn method for esophageal anastomosis: prospective evaluation in 218 patients. Arch Surg 140(1):33–39

    3. Gabor S, Renner H, Matzi V et al (2005) Early enteral feeding compared with parenteral nutrition after oesophageal or oesophagogastric resection and reconstruction. Br J Nutr 93(4):509–513

    4. Blewett CJ, Miller JD, Young JE et al (2001) Anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparison of thoracic and cervical anastomoses. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 7(2):75–78

    5. Schoppmann SF, Prager G, Langer FB, Riegler FM, Kabon B, Fleischmann E, Zacherl J. Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-center case controlled study. Surg Endosc. 2010 Dec; 24(12):3044-53.

    6. Ercan S, Rice TW, Murthy SC et al (2005) Does esophagogastric anastomotic technique influence the outcome of patients with esophageal cancer? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129(3):623–631

    7. Jones WB, Myers KM, Traxler LB, Bour ES (2008) Clinical results using bioabsorbable staple line reinforcement for circular staplers. Am Surg 74(6):462–468

    8. Santos RS, Raftopoulos Y, Singh D et al (2004) Utility of total mechanical stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy: a comparison to conventional anastomotic techniques. Surgery 136(4):917–925

Reviews

Hung PC, Chen HY, Tu YK, Kao YS. A Comparison of Different Types of Esophageal Reconstructions: A S

Activate now and continue learning straight away.

Single Access

Activation of this course for 3 days.

€4.99 inclusive VAT

Most popular offer

webop - Savings Flex

Combine our learning modules flexibly and save up to 50%.

from €3.29 / module

€39.50 / yearly payment

price overview

general and visceral surgery

Unlock all courses in this module.

€9.08 / month

€109.00 / yearly payment

  • literature search

    Literature search on the pages of pubmed.