A new three-layer-funnel-shaped esophagogastric anastomosis for surgical treatment of esophageal carcinoma

doi:10.3748/wjg.v9.i1.22

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 9, Issue 1

This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (2477)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Figures (1-1) series, Tables (1-3) series.

Item

Count

PDF

289

HTML

1925

Figures (1-1)

132

Tables (1-3)

131

Sum=2477

Jan 15, 2003 (publication date) through Apr 25, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (5)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Esophageal Cancer

World J Gastroenterol. Jan 15, 2003; 9(1): 22-25
Published online Jan 15, 2003. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v9.i1.22

Table 1 Evaluation of swallowing quality after operation (Group A, n = 58)

	No symptom of dysphagia	With symptom of dysphagia
	No symptom of dysphagia	Solid Food	Semisolids	Liquids
Preoperation	4 (6.9%)	23 (39.7%)	26 (44.8%)	5 (8.6%)
Postoperation	50 (86.2%)	5 (8.6%)	2 (3.4%)	1 (1.7%)

Analysed by wilcoxon rank test (Wilcoxon W = 2142, P = 0.0001), swallowing quality of patients after operation increased significantly compared with that before operation.

Table 2 Characteristics and pathological condition of patients in different groups

	A New method (n = 58)	B Conventional (n = 64)	C Reported^a (n = 107)	Statistical analysis
	A New method (n = 58)	B Conventional (n = 64)	C Reported^a (n = 107)	x²/t	P Value
Sex (male/female)	46/12	43/21	81/26	2.563	0.279
Mean age (range) (years)	57 (34-78)	54(28-76)	62 (30-81)
Tumor site
Upper (include cervical)	4 (7%)	3 (4.6%)	2 (2%)	2.731	0.604
Middle	21 (36%)	24 (37.5%)	43 (40%)
Lower(junctional part)	33 (57%)	37 (57.8%)	62 (58%)
Pathological type^b
Squamous	32 (55%)	34(53%)	28 (26%)	14.399	0.001^b
Adenocarcinoma	22 (38%)	28(44%)	72 (67%)	1.155	0.561^c
Others	4 (7%)	2(3%)	7 (7%)
Tumor Diameter
(Mean ± SD)(cm)	3.1 ± 1.94	3.6 ± 1.58	ND	1.551 (t)	0.084
Clinical Staging
Stage I	18 (31%)	22 (35%)	34 (32%)	7.272	0.122
StageIIA	31 (53%)	29 (45%)	65 (61%)
StageIIB	9 (16%)	13 (22%)	8 (8%)

^aBy McLarty AJ, Deschamps C, Trastek VF, et al[7]. Ann Thorac Surg, 1997; 63: 1568-1572.

^bThe pathological type of esophageal carcinoma was different as reported in the west from that in China (P = 0.001), but it was not the major factor that affected the methods and early outcomes of operation.

^cCompared the pathologic type of cancer treated by the new(Group A) and the conventional (Group B) methods. ND: No data available.

Table 3 Postoperative Outcomes and Complications of Patients in the above Groups

	A New method (n = 58)	B Conventional (n = 64)	C Reported^a (n = 107)	Statistical analysis
	A New method (n = 58)	B Conventional (n = 64)	C Reported^a (n = 107)	x²/t	P Value
No complication	33 (56.9%)	26 (40.6%)	17 (16%)	29.716	0.000
Complications	25 (43%)	38 (59.3%)	43 (40%)	2.258	0.353
Anastomotic leak	1 (2%)	4 (6%)	13 (12%)	6.566	0.038
Anastomotic stricture
Dysphagia to food	8 (13%)	24 (37.5%)	40 (37%)	10.214	0.006
Postoperative dilation	8 (14%)	23 (35.9%)	46 (43%)	14.746	0.001
Gastroesophageal reflux
Reflux Symptoms	13 (22%)	33 (52%)	64 (60%)	21.265	0.000
Required antiacids	11 (19%)	20 (32%)	31 (29%)	2.026	0.363

^aBy McLarty AJ, et al[7]. Ann Thorac Surg, 1997; 63: 1568-1572.

Citation: Dan HL, Bai Y, Meng H, Song CL, Zhang J, Zhang Y, Wan LC, Zhang YL, Zhang ZS, Zhou DY. A new three-layer-funnel-shaped esophagogastric anastomosis for surgical treatment of esophageal carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2003; 9(1): 22-25
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v9/i1/22.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v9.i1.22