Purpose: Current data states that most likely there are differences in postoperative complications regarding linear and circular stapling in open esophagectomy. This, however, has not yet been summarized and overviewed for minimally invasive esophagectomy, which is being performed increasingly.
Methods: A pooled analysis was conducted, including 4 publications comparing linear and circular stapling techniques in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage, pulmonary complications, and mean hospital stay.
Results: Summarizing the 4 chosen publications, no difference in anastomotic insufficiency could be displayed (p = 0.34). Similar results were produced for postoperative pulmonary complications. Comparing circular stapling (CS) to linear stapling (LS) did not show a trend towards a favorable technique (p = 0.82). Some studies did not take learning curves into account. Postoperative anastomotic stricture was not specified to an extent that made a summary of the publications possible.
Conclusions: In conclusion, data is not sufficient to provide a differentiated recommendation towards mechanical stapling techniques for individual patients undergoing MIE and RAMIE. Therefore, further RCTs are necessary for the identification of potential differences between LS and CS. At this point in research, we therefore suggest evading towards choosing a single anastomotic technique for each center. Momentarily, enduring the learning curve of the surgeon has the greatest evidence in reducing postoperative complication rates.
Keywords: Anastomotic leakage; Anastomotic stricture; Esophageal anastomosis; Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy; MIE; RAMIE.
© 2022. The Author(s).