[Safety and effectiveness of esophagojejunostomy through extracorporeal versus intracorporeal methods after...

Objective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of esophagojejunostomy (EJS) through extracorporeal and intracorporeal methods after laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was carried out. Clinicopathological data of 261 gastric cancer patients who underwent LTG, D2 lymphadenectomy, and Roux-en-Y EJS with complete postoperative 6-month follow-up data at the General Surgery Department of Nanfang Hospital from October 2018 to June 2021 were collected. Among these 261 patients, 139 underwent EJS with a circular stapler via mini-laparotomy (extracorporeal group), while 122 underwent intracorporeal EJS (intracorporeal group), including 43 with OrVil(TM) anastomosis (OrVil(TM) subgroup) and 79 with Overlap anastomosis (Overlap subgroup). Compared with the extracorporeal group, the intracorporeal group had higher body mass index, smaller tumor size, earlier T stage and M stage (all P<0.05). Compared with the Overlap subgroup, the Orvil(TM) subgroup had higher proportions of upper gastrointestinal obstruction and esophagus involvement, and more advanced T stage (all P<0.05). No other significant differences in the baseline data were found (all P>0.05). The primary outcome was complications at postoperative 6-month. The secondary outcomes were operative status, intraoperative complication and postoperative recovery. Continuous variables with a skewed distribution are expressed as the median (interquartile range), and were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables are expressed as the number and percentage and were compared with the Pearson chi-square, continuity correction or Fisher's exact test. Results: Compared with the extracorporeal group, the intracorporeal group had smaller incision [5.0 (1.0) cm vs. 8.0 (1.0) cm, Z=-10.931, P=0.001], lower rate of combined organ resection [0.8% (1/122) vs. 7.9% (11/139), χ(2)=7.454, P=0.006] and higher rate of R0 resection [94.3% (115/122) vs. 84.9 (118/139), χ(2)=5.957, P=0.015]. The morbidity of intraoperative complication in the extracorporeal group and intracorporeal group was 2.9% (4/139) and 4.1% (5/122), respectively (χ(2)=0.040, P=0.842). In terms of postoperative recovery, the extracorporeal group had shorter time to liquid diet [(5.1±2.4) days vs. (5.9±3.6) days, t=-2.268, P=0.024] and soft diet [(7.3±3.7) days vs. (8.8±6.5) days, t=-2.227, P=0.027], and shorter postoperative hospital stay [(10.5±5.1) days vs. (12.2±7.7) days, t=-2.108, P=0.036]. The morbidity of postoperative complication within 6 months in the extracorporeal group and intracorporeal group was 25.9% (36/139) and 31.1%, (38/122) respectively (P=0.348). Furthermore, there was also no significant difference in the morbidity of postoperative EJS complications [extracorporeal group vs. intracorporeal group: 5.0% (7/139) vs. 82.% (10/122), P=0.302]. The severity of postoperative complications between the two groups was not statistically significant (P=0.289). In the intracorporeal group, the Orvil(TM) subgroup had more estimated blood loss [100.0 (100.0) ml vs.50.0 (50.0) ml, Z=-2.992, P=0.003] and larger incision [6.0 (1.0) cm vs. 5.0 (1.0) cm, Z=-3.428, P=0.001] than the Overlap subgroup, seemed to have higher morbidity of intraoperative complication [7.0% (3/43) vs. 2.5% (2/79),P=0.480] and postoperative complications [37.2% (16/43) vs. 27.8% (22/79), P=0.286], and more severe classification of complication (P=0.289). Conclusions: The intracorporeal EJS after LTG has similar safety to extracorporeal EJS. As for intracorporeal EJS, the Overlap method is safer and has more potential advantages than Orvil(TM) method, and is worthy of further exploration and optimization.