Display options
Cite
Feng F, Sun L, Xu G, et al. Albert-Lembert versus hybrid-layered suture in hand sewn end-to-end cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal squamous cell carcinoma resection. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7(11):1917-26doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.11.09.
Feng, F., Sun, L., Xu, G., Hong, L., Yang, J., Cai, L., Li, G., Guo, M., Lian, X., & Zhang, H. (2015). Albert-Lembert versus hybrid-layered suture in hand sewn end-to-end cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal squamous cell carcinoma resection. Journal of thoracic disease, 7(11), 1917-26. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.11.09
Feng, Fan, et al. "Albert-Lembert versus hybrid-layered suture in hand sewn end-to-end cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal squamous cell carcinoma resection." Journal of thoracic disease vol. 7,11 (2015): 1917-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.11.09
Feng F, Sun L, Xu G, Hong L, Yang J, Cai L, Li G, Guo M, Lian X, Zhang H. Albert-Lembert versus hybrid-layered suture in hand sewn end-to-end cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal squamous cell carcinoma resection. J Thorac Dis. 2015 Nov;7(11):1917-26. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.11.09. PMID: 26716030; PMCID: PMC4669273.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Thorac Dis. 2015 Nov;7(11):1917-26. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.11.09.

Albert-Lembert versus hybrid-layered suture in hand sewn end-to-end cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal squamous cell carcinoma resection.

Journal of thoracic disease

Fan Feng, Li Sun, Guanghui Xu, Liu Hong, Jianjun Yang, Lei Cai, Guocai Li, Man Guo, Xiao Lian, Hongwei Zhang

Affiliations

  1. Department of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an 710032, China.

PMID: 26716030 PMCID: PMC4669273 DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.11.09

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hand sewn cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEGA) is regarded as preferred technique by surgeons after esophagectomy. However, considering the anastomotic leakage and stricture, the optimal technique for performing this anastomosis is still under debate.

METHODS: Between November 2010 and September 2012, 230 patients who underwent esophagectomy with hand sewn end-to-end (ETE) CEGA for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) were analyzed retrospectively, including 111 patients underwent Albert-Lembert suture anastomosis and 119 patients underwent hybrid-layered suture anastomosis. Anastomosis construction time was recorded during operation. Anastomotic leakage was recorded through upper gastrointestinal water-soluble contrast examination. Anastomotic stricture was recorded during follow up.

RESULTS: The hybrid-layered suture was faster than Albert-Lembert suture (29.40±1.24 min vs. 33.83±1.41 min, P=0.02). The overall anastomotic leak rate was 7.82%, the leak rate in hybrid-layered suture group was significantly lower than that in Albert-Lembert suture group (3.36% vs. 12.61%, P=0.01). The overall anastomotic stricture rate was 9.13%, the stricture rate in hybrid-layered suture group was significantly lower than that in Albert-Lembert suture group (5.04% vs. 13.51%, P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS: Hand sewn ETE CEGA with hybrid-layered suture is associated with lower anastomotic leakage and stricture rate compared to hand sewn ETE CEGA with Albert-Lembert suture.

Keywords: Hand sewn anastomosis; cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEGA); end-to-end anastomosis; esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC); esophagectomy

References

  1. Surg Endosc. 2008 Jun;22(6):1470-6 - PubMed
  2. Am J Surg. 1956 Aug;92(2):222-7 - PubMed
  3. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011 Nov;15(11):1952-60 - PubMed
  4. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011 Feb;141(2):444-8 - PubMed
  5. Ann Surg. 2003 Oct;238(4):486-94; discussion 494-5 - PubMed
  6. Ann Surg. 2006 Feb;243(2):204-11 - PubMed
  7. Dig Dis Sci. 2009 Sep;54(9):1971-8 - PubMed
  8. West J Surg Obstet Gynecol. 1951 Jan;59(1):1-5 - PubMed
  9. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004 Jun;25(6):1097-101 - PubMed
  10. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005 Nov;9(8):1031-40; discussion 1040-2 - PubMed
  11. Ann Thorac Med. 2009 Oct;4(4):197-200 - PubMed
  12. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 Jun;63(4):328-34 - PubMed
  13. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012 Jul;16(7):1287-95 - PubMed
  14. Obes Surg. 2007 Jul;17(7):878-84 - PubMed
  15. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003 Feb;75(2):337-41 - PubMed
  16. Dig Surg. 2002;19(2):92-8 - PubMed
  17. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000 Feb;119(2):277-88 - PubMed
  18. J UOEH. 2000 Mar 1;22(1):1-6 - PubMed
  19. Ann Surg. 2011 Aug;254(2):226-33 - PubMed
  20. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009 Jan;35(1):8-12 - PubMed
  21. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009 Jul;88(1):177-84; discussion 184-5 - PubMed
  22. Surg Radiol Anat. 2006 Oct;28(5):429-37 - PubMed
  23. World J Surg Oncol. 2012 Aug 06;10:159 - PubMed
  24. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009 Nov;88(5):1647-53 - PubMed
  25. Equine Vet J Suppl. 2011 Nov;(40):46-50 - PubMed
  26. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011 Mar;12(3):366-9 - PubMed
  27. Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13 - PubMed
  28. J Gastrointest Surg. 2003 Dec;7(8):997-1003; discussion 1003 - PubMed
  29. Int J Surg. 2009 Feb;7(1):31-5 - PubMed
  30. Dis Esophagus. 2008;21(3):272-4 - PubMed
  31. Surg Endosc. 2012 Jun;26(6):1573-8 - PubMed
  32. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013 Dec;96(6):1933-41 - PubMed

Publication Types