A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of route of reconstruction after esophagectomy for cancer

• Published in: The American journal of surgery 2001-11, Vol.182 (5), p.470-475
• Main Authors: Urschel, John D, Urschel, Dorothy M, Miller, John D, Bennett, W.Frederick, Young, J.Edward M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anastomosis; Anastomotic leak; Biological and medical sciences; Cancer; Clinical trials; Complications; Confidence intervals; Dysphagia; Esophageal cancer; Esophageal Neoplasms - surgery; Esophagectomy - rehabilitation; Esophagectomy methods; Esophagoplasty - methods; Esophagus; Foregut; Gastric emptying; Heart; Humans; Length of stay; Medical sciences; Meta-analysis; Morbidity; Mortality; Nuclear medicine; Patients; Postoperative Complications; Prospective studies; Quality of life; Randomized controlled trial; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reconstructive surgical procedures; Route selection; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases; Surgery of the digestive system; Swallowing; Ventilation
• ISSN: 0002-9610; 1879-1883
• DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9610(01)00763-2

Background: A gastric conduit is usually used to reconstruct the foregut after esophagectomy for cancer. It can be transposed through a posterior or anterior mediastinal route. The choice of route is often debated but there is little evidence to support the use of one route over the other. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the effect of route of reconstruction on patient outcomes. Methods: Medline and manual searches were done (completed independently and in duplicate) to identify all published RCTs that addressed the issue of route of gastric conduit reconstruction after esophagectomy for cancer. The selection process was inclusive; no trials were excluded. Trial validity assessment was done and a trial quality score was assigned. Major outcomes for quantitative data synthesis included operative mortality, anastomotic leaks, cardiac morbidity, and pulmonary morbidity. A random-effects model was used and relative risk was the principal measure of effect. Systematic qualitative review was used for other outcomes such as duration of ventilation, length of hospital stay, operative blood loss, duration of surgery, anastomotic strictures, dysphagia, gastric emptying, and quality of life. Data on cancer survival were not available in the RCTs. Results: Six RCTs were selected with quality scores ranging from 1 to 4 (5-point Jadad scale). Selection and validity agreement was strong. Relative risk (95% confidence interval; P value), expressed as posterior versus anterior mediastinal route (treatment versus control), was 0.56 (0.17, 1.82; P = 0.34) for mortality, 1.01 (0.35, 2.94; P = 0.98) for leaks, 0.43 (0.17, 1.12; P = 0.08) for cardiac complications, and 0.67 (0.34, 1.33; P = 0.26) for pulmonary complications. Systematic qualitative review did not suggest any difference in other perioperative outcomes or conduit function for the two routes of reconstruction. Conclusions: Data synthesized from existing RCTs show that posterior and anterior mediastinal routes of reconstruction are associated with similar outcomes after esophagectomy for cancer. However, a difference in outcomes for the two reconstructive routes remains possible. Further trials with larger numbers of patients are needed.