↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of manual versus mechanical cervical anastomosis in a prospective series of patients with esophagectomy due to cancer.

Overview of attention for article published in Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú, June 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 123)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of manual versus mechanical cervical anastomosis in a prospective series of patients with esophagectomy due to cancer.
Published in
Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú, June 2021
DOI 10.47892/rgp.2021.412.1268
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rodrigo Castaño Llano, Santiago Salazar Ochoa, Amy Del Mar Piñeres Salazar, Ricardo Jaramillo, Sandra Molina, Felipe Aristizábal Arjona, Juan Esteban Puerta Botero

Abstract

The scarce existing literature suggests having a lower rate of anastomotic leakage and less late stricture formation after stapled esophagogastric anastomosis compared to the manual anastomosis technique. The aim of the present study is to compare the surgical outcomes of termino-lateral manual cervical anastomosis versus mechanical anastomosis by later lateral stapling, after transhiatal esophagectomy for cancer. A retrospective review of patients undergoing transhiatal esophagectomy with manual or mechanical anastomosis for neoplasia was performed at three institutions in Medellin, between 2011 and 2018. Endpoints included leak rate, morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and endoscopically identified anastomotic strictures requiring dilatation. 68 patients (40 men, 59%) were evaluated, 37 with manual anastomosisand 31 with mechanical anastomosis with similar demographic characteristics. Anastomotic leaks occurred in 13 patients (19.1%), with no difference found between manual and mechanical anastomosis (18.9 vs. 19.3%; p=0.93). Overall morbidity (61%), in-hospital mortality (3%) and length of hospital stay (median 12 days) were not affected by anastomotic technique. Follow-up endoscopic evaluation was available in all patients and anastomotic stricture associated or not with leak was detected in 18 patients (22%), in cases of stricture without leak is more frequent with manual than mechanical anastomosis technique (21.6 vs 6.4%; p=0.07) with longer duration of surgical procedure in case of manual anastomosis (p=0.05). Our non-randomized study suggests that the manual anastomosis technique results in a shorter surgical time and a lower stricture rate than mechanical anastomosis in cervical esophagogastric reconstruction after transhiatal esophagectomy, with a similar rateof leakage, hospital stay and morbidity and mortality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2023.
All research outputs
#5,199,739
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú
#6
of 123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,477
of 453,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 453,513 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them