Comparison of the subtotal and narrow gastric conduit for cervical esophagogastrostomy after esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Abstract

Several reports have compared narrow gastric conduit (NGC) with subtotal gastric conduit (SGC) for cervical esophagogastrostomy after esophagectomy; however, whether which one is more beneficial in terms of postoperative complications remains unclear. To determine the optimal gastric conduit type, we retrospectively investigated and compared the postoperative complications between NGC and SGC used in cervical circular-tapered esophagogastrostomy after esophagectomy through a propensity score-matched analysis. Between 2008 and 2022, 577 consecutive esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy and cervical circular-stapled esophagogastrostomy were enrolled in this study. Of the 577 patients, 77 were included each in the SGC and NGC groups, after propensity score matching. Clinical characteristics did not differ between the two groups. The anastomotic leakage rate was significantly lower in the SGC group than in the NGC group (5% vs. 22%, p < 0.01). The anastomotic stenosis rate was significantly higher in the SGC group (16% vs. 5%, p = 0.03). Multivariate logistic analysis showed that NGC, subcutaneous route, and age were significant independent factors associated with anastomotic leakage (odds ratios, 8.58, 6.49, and 5.21; p < 0.01, < 0.01 and 0.03, respectively) and that SGC was a significant independent factor associated with anastomotic stricture (odds ratios, 4.91; p = 0.04). In cervical circular-stapled esophagogastrostomy after esophagectomy, SGC was superior to NGC in terms of reducing the risk of anastomotic leakage, although the risk of anastomotic stricture needs to be resolved.