摘要
Background： Laparoscopic total gastrectomy （LTG） is increasingly performed in patients with gastric cancer. However, the usage of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy （IEJ） following LTG is limited, as the safety and efficacy remain unclear. The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of IEJ following LTG. Methods： Studies published from January 1994 to January 2017 comparing the outcomes ofl EJ and extracorporeal esophagojejunostomy （EEJ） following LTG were reviewed and collected from the PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Embase, and China National Knowledge lntemet （CNKI）. Operative results, postoperative recovery, and postoperative complications were compared and analyzed. The weighted mean difference （WMD） and odds ratio （OR） with a 95% confidence interval （CI） were calculated using the Review Manager 5.3. Results： Seven nonrandomized studies with 785 patients were included. Compared with EEJ, IEJ has less blood loss （WMD： -13.52 ml; 95% CI： -24.82-2.22; P = 0.02）, earlier time to first oral intake （WMD： -0.49 day; 95% CI： -0.83-0.14; P 〈 0.01 ）, and shorter length of hospitalization （WMD： -0.62 day; 95% CI： - 1.08-0.16; P 〈 0.01 ）. There was no significant difference between IEJ and EEJ regarding the operation time, anastomotic time, number of retrieved lymph nodes, time to first flatus, anastomosis leakage rate, anastomosis stenosis rate, and proximal resections （all P 〉 0.05）. Conclusions： Compared with EEJ, IEJ has better cosmesis, milder surgical trauma, and a faster postoperative recovery. IEJ can be performed as safely as EEJ. IEJ should be encouraged to surgeons with sufficient expertise.
Background： Laparoscopic total gastrectomy （LTG） is increasingly performed in patients with gastric cancer. However, the usage of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy （IEJ） following LTG is limited, as the safety and efficacy remain unclear. The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of IEJ following LTG. Methods： Studies published from January 1994 to January 2017 comparing the outcomes ofl EJ and extracorporeal esophagojejunostomy （EEJ） following LTG were reviewed and collected from the PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Embase, and China National Knowledge lntemet （CNKI）. Operative results, postoperative recovery, and postoperative complications were compared and analyzed. The weighted mean difference （WMD） and odds ratio （OR） with a 95% confidence interval （CI） were calculated using the Review Manager 5.3. Results： Seven nonrandomized studies with 785 patients were included. Compared with EEJ, IEJ has less blood loss （WMD： -13.52 ml; 95% CI： -24.82-2.22; P = 0.02）, earlier time to first oral intake （WMD： -0.49 day; 95% CI： -0.83-0.14; P 〈 0.01 ）, and shorter length of hospitalization （WMD： -0.62 day; 95% CI： - 1.08-0.16; P 〈 0.01 ）. There was no significant difference between IEJ and EEJ regarding the operation time, anastomotic time, number of retrieved lymph nodes, time to first flatus, anastomosis leakage rate, anastomosis stenosis rate, and proximal resections （all P 〉 0.05）. Conclusions： Compared with EEJ, IEJ has better cosmesis, milder surgical trauma, and a faster postoperative recovery. IEJ can be performed as safely as EEJ. IEJ should be encouraged to surgeons with sufficient expertise.
