COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LATE RESULTS OF CERVICAL ESOPHAGOGASTRIC ANASTOMOSIS BY MANUAL AND MECHANICAL SUTURE IN PATIENTS SUBMITTED TO ESOPHAGEAL MUCOSECTOMY THROUGH ADVANCED MEGAESOPHAGUS

• Autor(a) principal: AQUINO,José Luis Braga de
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Outros Autores: LEANDRO-MERHI,Vania Aparecida, MENDONÇA,José Alexandre, MENDES,Elisa Donalisio Teixeira, CLAIRET,Conceição de Maria Aquino Vieira, REIS,Leonardo Oliveira
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-67202019000400301
• topic: Esophageal achalasia; Anastomosis, surgical; Suture techniques

ABSTRACT Background: Among the anastomoses of the gastrointestinal tract, those of the esophagus are of special interest due to several anatomical or even general peculiarities. Aim: Evaluate retrospectively the results comparing mechanical vs. manual suture at cervical esophagogastric anastomosis in megaesophagus treatment. Methods: Were included 92 patients diagnosed with advanced megaesophagus with clinical conditions to undergo the surgery. All underwent esophageal mucosectomy, performing anastomosis of the esophagus stump with the gastric tube at the cervical level. In order to make this anastomosis, the patients were divided into two groups: group A (n=53) with circular mechanical suture, lateral end; group B (n=39) with manual suture in two sides, lateral end. In the postoperative period, an early evaluation was performed, analyzing local and systemic complications and late (average 5.6 y) analyzing deglutition. Results: Early evaluation: a) dehiscence of esophagogastric anastomosis n=5 (9.4%) in group A vs. n=9 (23.0%) in group B (p=0.0418); b) stenosis of esophagogastric anastomosis n=8 (15.1%) in group A vs. n=15 (38.4%) in group B (p=0.0105.); c) pulmonary infection n=5 (9.4%) in group A vs. n=3 (7.6%) in group B (p=1.0000.); d) pleural effusion n=5 (9.4%) in group A vs. n=6 (15.4%) in group B (p<0.518). Late evaluation showed that 86.4-96% of the patients presented the criteria 4 and 5 from SAEED, expressing effective swallowing mechanisms without showing significant differences among the groups. Conclusion: Cervical esophagogastric anastomosis by means of mechanical suture is more proper than the manual with lower incidence of local complications and, in the long-term evaluation, regular deglutition was acquired in both suture techniques in equal quality.