食管癌术后吻合口生物力学分析及加强措施
Biomechanical Analysis and Strengthening Measures of Anastomosis of Esophageal Cancer
DOI: 10.12677/ACM.2020.106132, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 刘佳坤:河北省胸科医院胸外科,河北 石家庄;徐新建, 何 明*, 牛林鹏, 赵继东, 李 飞:河北医科大学第四医院胸外科,河北 石家庄
关键词: 食管癌术后吻合口瘘生物力学奈维Postoperative Esophageal Cancer Anastomotic Fistula Biomechanics Neoveil?
摘要: 目的:通过体外模拟实验对食管胃吻合口的生物力学进行分析并应用奈维补片加强吻合口局部的抗拉力。方法:选取食管癌术后复查胃镜的患者,通过计算分别得出颈部吻合口和胸部吻合口到食管入口的距离;通过在X线下测量头部活动时梨状窝下极的活动度来估测食管入口的位移;以上述测量结果为依据,应用新鲜猪食管、胃标本进行体外模拟实验,测量不同长度食管在相同位移下所受到的牵拉力,然后应用奈维补片加强食管胃吻合口,并测量吻合口所能承受的最大拉力。结果:1) 食管入口到颈部吻合口、主动脉弓上吻合口的平均距离分别为5.41 cm ± 1.22 cm、7.60 cm ± 1.36 cm;两者比较差异有统计学意义P = 0.000。2) 抬头和低头活动时,梨状窝下极平均活动范围为(2.26 ± 0.58) cm。3) 随着食管长度的增加,食管拉伸2 cm时所承受的拉力逐渐减小。并且食管长度每增加1cm,各组食管所承受的拉力值差异均有统计学意义P < 0.05。4) 常规吻合后吻合口承受最大拉力平均值为(20.00 ± 1.65) N,应用奈维加强后吻合口承受最大拉力平均值为(27.67 ± 0.95) N,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P = 0.001)。结论:颈部活动导致的食管入口位移会造成食管癌术后吻合口张力的增加,可能是导致吻合口瘘的重要因素;应用奈维补片可以增加吻合口的局部抗拉强度。
Abstract: Objective: To analyze the biomechanics of esophagogastric anastomosis by in vitro simulation experiment and to strengthen the local tensile resistance of anastomosis by Neoveil®. Methods: Patients who underwent gastroscopy after esophageal cancer surgery were selected, and the distances from neck anastomosis and chest anastomosis to esophageal entrance were calculated respectively. Displacement of the esophageal inlet was estimated by X-ray measurement of the motion range of the lower pole of piriform recess during head movement. Based on the above measurement results, fresh pig esophagus and stomach samples were used for in vitro simulation experiment to measure the tensile force of different lengths of esophagus under the same displacement, Then Neoveil® was used to strengthen the esophagogastric anastomosis and the maximum tensile force of the anastomosis was measured. Results: 1) The average distance from the esophageal entrance to the neck anastomosis and the anastomosis above the aortic arch was 5.41 cm ± 1.22 cm and 7.60 cm ± 1.36 cm, respectively. The difference between the two was statistically significant P = 0.000. 2) The average motion range of the lower pole of piriform recess was (2.26 ± 0.58) cm when the head was raised and lowered. 3) As the length of the esophagus increases, the pulling force on the esophagus when stretched 2 cm decreases gradually. Moreover, for each 1 cm increase in esophageal length, the difference in esophageal tensile force between each group was statistically significant (P < 0.05). 4) After conventional anastomosis, the mean value of the maximum tensile force of the anastomosis was (20.00 ± 1.65) N, and after Neoveil® was used to strengthen the anastomosis, the mean value of the maximum tensile force of the anastomosis was (27.67 ± 0.95) N, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.001). Conclusion: The esophageal entrance displacement caused by neck movement will increase the anastomotic tension after esophageal cancer surgery, which may be an important factor leading to anastomotic fistula. The local tensile strength of anastomosis can be increased by using Neoveil®.
文章引用:刘佳坤, 徐新建, 何明, 牛林鹏, 赵继东, 李飞. 食管癌术后吻合口生物力学分析及加强措施[J]. 临床医学进展, 2020, 10(6): 864-870. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2020.106132

参考文献

[1] Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., et al. (2018) Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 68, 394-424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[2] 张思维, 郑荣寿, 左婷婷, 等. 中国食管癌死亡状况和生存分析[J]. 中华肿瘤杂志, 2016, 38(9): 709-715.
[3] Chen, W.Q., Zheng, R.S., Baade, P.D., et al. (2016) Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 66, 115-132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Kassis, E., Kosinski, A., Ross Jr., P., Koppens, K., Donahue, J. and Daniel, V. (2013) Predictors of Anastomotic Leak after Esophagectomy: An Analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Database. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 96, 1919-1926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5] Biere, S.S., Maas, K.W., Cuesta, M.A. and van der Peet, D.L. (2011) Cervical or Thoracic Anastomosis after Esophagectomy for Cancer: A Systematic Review Andmeta-Analysis. Digestive Surgery, 28, 29-35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Gooszen, J., Goense, L., Gisbertz, S.S., et al. (2018) Intrathoracic versus Cervical Anastomosis and Predictors of Anastomotic Leakage after Oesophagectomy for Cancer. British Journal of Surgery, 105, 552-560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] Sunpaweravong, S., Ruangsin, S., Laohawiriyakamol, S., Mahattanobon, S. and Geater, A. (2012) Prediction of Major Postoperative Complications and Survival for Locally Advanced Esophageal Carcinoma Patients. Asian Journal of Surgery, 35, 104-109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Harustiak, T., Pazdro, A., Snajdauf, M., et al. (2016) Anastomotic Leak and Stricture after Hand-Sewn versus Linear-Stapled Intrathoracic Oesophagogastric Anastomosis: Single-Centre Analysis of 415 Oesophagectomies. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 49, 1650-1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9] 李剑, 周福有, 耿明飞, 等. 食管癌术后颈部吻合口后壁瘘的临床分析[J]. 中国肿瘤外科杂志, 2018, 10(1): 30-32.
[10] Licht, E., Markowitz, A.J., Bains, M.S., et al. (2016) Endoscopic Management of Esophageal Anastomotic Leaks after Surgery for Malignant Disease. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 101, 301-304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Van Workum, F., Bouwense, S.A.W., Luyer, M.D.P., et al. (2016) Intrathoracic versus Cervical a Nastomosis after Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Study Protocol of the ICAN Randomized Controlled Trial. Trials, 17, Article No. 505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] 靳海英, 尚琳, 韩新巍, 等. X线下梨状隐窝下极活动度的测量及其影响因素分析[J]. 郑州大学学报(医学版), 2007, 42(4): 720-722.
[13] Urschel, J.D. (1995) Esophagogastrostomy Anastomotic Leaks Complicating Esophagectomy: A Review. The American Journal of Surgery, 169, 634-640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[14] Morse, B.C., Simpson, J.P., Jones, Y.R., et al. (2013) Determination of Independent Predictive Factors for Anastomotic Leak: Analysis of 682 Intestinal Anastomoses. The American Journal of Surgery, 206, 950-956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Merritt, R.E., Whyte, R.I., D’Arcy, N.T., et al. (2011) Morbidity and Mortality after Esophagectomy Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 92, 2034-2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] Lerut, T., Coosemans, W., Decker, G., et al. (2002) Anastomotic Complications after Esophagectomy. Digestive Surgery, 19, 92-98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[17] Kimura, M., Kuwabara, Y., Taniwaki, S., et al. (2018) Improving the Side-to-Side Stapled Anastomosis: Comparison of Staplers for Robust Crotch Formation. Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases, 14, 16-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[18] Ojima, T., Nakamura, M., Hayata, K., et al. (2018) Reinforced Stapling Technique for ReconstructionAfter Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy. Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, 28, 334-336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[19] Kwon, H.E., Seo, H.I. and Yun, S.P. (2019) Use of Neoveil or TachoSil to Prevent Pancreatic Fistula Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Retrospective Study. Medicine, 98, e15293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef