Short-term outcomes of delta-shaped anastomosis versus functional end-to-end anastomosis using linear staplers for colon cancer.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Techniques in Coloproctology Pub Date : 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1007/s10151-024-03006-1
R Ono, T Tominaga, M Ishii, M Hisanaga, M Araki, Y Sumida, T Nonaka, S Hashimoto, T Shiraishi, K Noda, H Takeshita, H Fukuoka, S Oyama, K Ishimaru, T Sawai, K Matsumoto
{"title":"Short-term outcomes of delta-shaped anastomosis versus functional end-to-end anastomosis using linear staplers for colon cancer.","authors":"R Ono, T Tominaga, M Ishii, M Hisanaga, M Araki, Y Sumida, T Nonaka, S Hashimoto, T Shiraishi, K Noda, H Takeshita, H Fukuoka, S Oyama, K Ishimaru, T Sawai, K Matsumoto","doi":"10.1007/s10151-024-03006-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several methods are used for reconstruction in colon cancer surgery, including hand-sewn or stapled anastomosis. However, few reports have compared short-term outcomes among reconstruction methods. This study compared short-term outcomes between delta-shaped anastomosis (Delta) and functional end-to-end anastomosis (FEEA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed 1314 consecutive patients who underwent colorectal surgery with FEEA or Delta reconstruction between January 2016 and December 2023. Patients were divided into two groups according to reconstruction by FEEA (F group; n = 1242) or Delta (D group; n = 72). Propensity score matching was applied to minimize the possibility of selection bias and to balance covariates that could affect postoperative complications. Short-term outcomes were compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Postoperative complications occurred in 215 patients (17.3%) in F group and 8 patients (11.1%) in D group. Before matching, transverse colon cancer was more frequent (p = 0.002), clinical N-positive status was less frequent (44.1% versus 16.7%, p < 0.001), distant metastasis was less frequent (11.7% versus 1.4%, p = 0.003), and laparoscopic approach was more frequent (87.8% versus 100%, p < 0.001) in D group. After matching, no differences in any clinical factor were evident between groups. Blood loss was significantly lower (28 mL versus 10 mL, p = 0.002) in D group, but operation time and postoperative complication rates were similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Delta and FEEA were both considered safe as reconstruction methods. Further studies are needed to clarify appropriate case selection for Delta and FEEA.</p>","PeriodicalId":51192,"journal":{"name":"Techniques in Coloproctology","volume":"28 1","pages":"131"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques in Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-024-03006-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Several methods are used for reconstruction in colon cancer surgery, including hand-sewn or stapled anastomosis. However, few reports have compared short-term outcomes among reconstruction methods. This study compared short-term outcomes between delta-shaped anastomosis (Delta) and functional end-to-end anastomosis (FEEA).

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1314 consecutive patients who underwent colorectal surgery with FEEA or Delta reconstruction between January 2016 and December 2023. Patients were divided into two groups according to reconstruction by FEEA (F group; n = 1242) or Delta (D group; n = 72). Propensity score matching was applied to minimize the possibility of selection bias and to balance covariates that could affect postoperative complications. Short-term outcomes were compared between groups.

Results: Postoperative complications occurred in 215 patients (17.3%) in F group and 8 patients (11.1%) in D group. Before matching, transverse colon cancer was more frequent (p = 0.002), clinical N-positive status was less frequent (44.1% versus 16.7%, p < 0.001), distant metastasis was less frequent (11.7% versus 1.4%, p = 0.003), and laparoscopic approach was more frequent (87.8% versus 100%, p < 0.001) in D group. After matching, no differences in any clinical factor were evident between groups. Blood loss was significantly lower (28 mL versus 10 mL, p = 0.002) in D group, but operation time and postoperative complication rates were similar between groups.

Conclusions: Delta and FEEA were both considered safe as reconstruction methods. Further studies are needed to clarify appropriate case selection for Delta and FEEA.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用线性订书机进行三角型吻合术与功能性端端吻合术治疗结肠癌的短期疗效对比。
背景:结肠癌手术中有多种重建方法,包括手缝或缝合吻合。然而,很少有报告对不同重建方法的短期疗效进行比较。本研究比较了三角吻合术(Delta)和功能性端端吻合术(FEEA)的短期疗效:我们回顾性研究了 2016 年 1 月至 2023 年 12 月间接受 FEEA 或 Delta 重建的 1314 例连续结直肠手术患者。根据FEEA重建(F组;n = 1242)或Delta重建(D组;n = 72)将患者分为两组。采用倾向评分匹配法最大程度地降低了选择偏差的可能性,并平衡了可能影响术后并发症的协变量。对各组的短期疗效进行了比较:结果:F组有215名患者(17.3%)出现术后并发症,D组有8名患者(11.1%)出现术后并发症。匹配前,横结肠癌的发生率更高(P = 0.002),临床 N 阳性状态的发生率更低(44.1% 对 16.7%,P 结论:F 组和 D 组的术后并发症发生率均高于 D 组:Delta和FEEA都被认为是安全的重建方法。需要进一步研究以明确Delta和FEEA的适当病例选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Techniques in Coloproctology
Techniques in Coloproctology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
176
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Techniques in Coloproctology is an international journal fully devoted to diagnostic and operative procedures carried out in the management of colorectal diseases. Imaging, clinical physiology, laparoscopy, open abdominal surgery and proctoperineology are the main topics covered by the journal. Reviews, original articles, technical notes and short communications with many detailed illustrations render this publication indispensable for coloproctologists and related specialists. Both surgeons and gastroenterologists are represented on the distinguished Editorial Board, together with pathologists, radiologists and basic scientists from all over the world. The journal is strongly recommended to those who wish to be updated on recent developments in the field, and improve the standards of their work. Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in an appropriate version of the 1965 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted. Reports of animal experiments must state that the Principles of Laboratory Animal Care (NIH publication no. 86-23 revised 1985) were followed as were applicable national laws (e.g. the current version of the German Law on the Protection of Animals). The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. Authors will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill such requirements.
期刊最新文献
Laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation (video). Predictors of perioperative morbidity in elderly patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection. Combined versus conventional approaches in laparoscopic radical right hemicolectomy: a retrospective analysis. Best clinical practice recommendations for the management of symptomatic hemorrhoids via laser hemorrhoidoplasty: the LHP recommendations. Preoperative anorectal manometry as a predictor of function after ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1