{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.050536672629695883, 'fraction_numerical': 0.044722719141323794, 'mean_word_length': 5.637982195845697, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Purse-indigitation mechanical anastomosis vs. traditional mechanical anastomosis undergoing McKeown esophagectomy: a retrospective comparative cohort study

Background Postoperative anastomosis-related complication rates remain high in patients undergoing McKeown esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis, and the optimal anastomotic technique remains under debate. We describe a new method of anastomosis, referred to as purse-indigitation mechanical anastomosis (PIMA) by reinforcing esophagogastric anastomosis, which can be performed after minimally invasive surgery. This study was designed to compare its feasibility, efficacy, and safety with those of traditional mechanical anastomosis (TMA). Methods Between September 2020 and January 2022, 264 patients undergoing McKeown esophagectomy at a single center were included. Demographic data, including patient age, sex, diagnosis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy/radiation therapy in cases of malignancy, comorbidities, and operation time, anastomotic time, estimated blood loss, post‑operative complications were collected. Their medical records were retrospectively reviewed, analyzed and compared between the PIMA and TMA cohorts. Results The baseline comparability of the PIMA and TMA before the comparisons is no statistical difference. Univariable analysis revealed significantly decreased anastomotic leak rate with PIMA compared to TMA (4.10% vs. 11.59%, P=0.04). No significant difference was demonstrated in total operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, or pulmonary complications between PIMA and TMA (243.94±21.98 vs. 238.70±28.45 min; 201.10±67.83 vs. 197.39±65.13 mL; 8.83±2.77 vs. 9.35±3.78 days; 8.21% vs. 11.59%; all P>0.05). The incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (3.44% vs. 50%) was significantly associated with an increased rate of anastomotic leak [odds ratio (OR): 15.50; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.81–43.71; P<0.01]. Conclusions PIMA is feasible, safe to perform, and demonstrated a leak rate less than half that of TMA in this study. PIMA may represent a superior alternative to standard esophagogastric cervical anastomosis techniques. Larger sample size and long-term survival are required to fully evaluate PIMA.