Skip to main content
NCBI home page
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery logoLink to World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
. 2022 Apr 27;14(4):315–328. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v14.i4.315

How to examine anastomotic integrity intraoperatively in totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy? Methylene blue testing prevents technical defect-related anastomotic leaks

Chun Deng 1, Yang Liu 2, Zhen-Yu Zhang 3, Heng-Duo Qi 4, Zhi Guo 5, Xu Zhao 6, Xiao-Jun Li 7
PMCID: PMC9131837  PMID: 35664361

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative methylene blue testing (IMBT), air leak testing, or endoscopy is used to assess the anastomotic integrity of esophagojejunostomy during open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy has been widely used to treat gastric cancer in the last few decades. However, reports on testing anastomotic integrity in totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy are limited.

AIM

To explore the effects of IMBT on the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leaks (PALs) and identify the risk factors for PALs in totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy.

METHODS

From January 2017 to December 2019, patients who underwent totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy at the Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. According to whether or not they experienced an IMBT, the patients were divided into an IMBT group and a control group. If the IMBT was positive, an intraoperative suture was required to reinforce the anastomosis. The difference in the incidence of PALs was compared, and the risk factors were investigated.

RESULTS

This study consisted of 513 patients, 211 in the IMBT group and 302 in the control group. Positive IMBT was shown in seven patients (3.3%) in the IMBT group, and no PAL occurred in these patients after suture reinforcement. Multivariate analysis showed that risk factors for predicting positive IMBT were body mass index (BMI) > 25 kg/m2 (hazard ratio [HR] = 8.357, P = 0.009), operation time > 4 h (HR = 55.881, P = 0.002), and insufficient surgical experience (HR = 15.286, P = 0.010). Moreover, 15 patients (2.9%) developed PALs in 513 patients, and the rates of PALs were significantly lower in the IMBT group than in the control group [2 of 211 patients (0.9%) vs 13 of 302 patients (4.3%), P = 0.0026]. Further analysis demonstrated that preoperative complications (HR = 13.128, P = 0.017), totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (HR = 9.075, P = 0.043), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 7.150, P = 0.008) were independent risk factors for PALs.

CONCLUSION

IMBT is an effective method to evaluate the integrity of anastomosis during totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy, thus preventing technical defect-related anastomotic leaks. Preoperative complications, totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are independent risk factors for PALs.

Keywords: Anastomotic leak, Gastric neoplasms, Totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy, Methylene blue, Risk factors

Core Tip: We reviewed the outcomes of 513 consecutive patients with gastric cancer who underwent totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy with and without intraoperative methylene blue testing at Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital from January 2017 to December 2019. We found that intraoperative methylene blue testing is an effective method to evaluate the integrity of anastomosis during totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy and could reduce the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leaks. Preoperative complications, totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are independent risk factors for postoperative anastomotic leaks.

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, ranking fifth in incidence and third in mortality[1]. Totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy has been widely used to treat gastric cancer[2-4]. Postoperative anastomotic leak (PAL) is a severe complication, and occurs in 1.7%-5.7% of patients with gastric cancer[5-7]. These complications could prolong hospital stay, increase medical expenses, cause poor quality of life, and subsequently worsen the long-term survival of patients[8-10].

It is well known that the defects of intraoperative anastomotic techniques are closely related to PALs[11-13]. Therefore, some PALs might be avoided if insufficiently integral anastomoses were immediately reinforced. Intraoperative methylene blue testing (IMBT), intraoperative air leak test, or intraoperative endoscopy has been used to assess the anastomotic integrity of esophagojejunostomy during open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer[6,14-15]. However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has assessed the integrity of anastomosis during totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. Compared with open surgery, totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy has the disadvantages of two-dimensional images, poor hand-eye coordination, limited operating space, fulcrum effect, and lack of haptic feedback[16-17]. Furthermore, according to the ERAS guidelines, abdominal drains should not routinely be placed after gastrectomy, which requires high-quality anastomosis[18-19]. Thus, a reliable anastomosis leak test is vital during totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy.

In this study, we used IMBT to check the anastomotic integrity of esophagojejunostomy or gastrojejunostomy during totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. This is the first study to assess the anastomotic integrity during totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. We aimed to explore the effects of IMBT on the incidence and risk factors for PALs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy from January 2017 to December 2019. In our department, some surgeons think that IMBT is useful, while others are skeptical regarding its effects. Thus, two groups were formed: An IMBT group and a control group. Staging of the tumor was performed following the eighth edition of the AJCC Guidelines for gastric cancer[20]. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital.

The inclusion criteria were: (1) Patients who underwent totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer and adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction from January 2017 to December 2019; (2) Gastric cancer or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction diagnosed via endoscopy and pathological identification; and (3) Patients whose surgical and demographic data were complete and reliable. The exclusion criteria were: (1) Patients who underwent totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy that used Billroth-I anastomosis; (2) Those who were converted to open surgery; (3) Those who were found to have distant metastases intraoperatively; (4) Those who did not undergo radical resection; and (5) Those who gave up treatment or were transferred to another hospital.

Surgical methods and postoperative management

All surgeries were performed laparoscopically. Totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy was reconstructed via an overlap anastomosis[21], and totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy was reconstructed via a Billroth-II anastomosis[22]. Lymph node dissection was performed according to the Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines 2014 (ver. 4)[23]. This study used a 45-mm linear stapler (Johnson Company, United States) for the overlap anastomosis and a 60-mm linear stapler (Johnson Company, United States) for the Billroth-II anastomosis. In our department, we preferred the Billroth II anastomosis and Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy rather than the Billroth I anastomosis. A Billroth I anastomosis needs to preserve a large residual stomach, leading to insufficient tumor margins and significant anastomotic tension when the tumor location is relatively high and the diameter is large. In China, most gastric cancer cases are found in advanced stages, and the diameter of the tumor is often large compared to Japan and Korea[24-26]. In addition, Billroth I anastomosis has a greater risk of remnant gastritis and reflux esophagitis[27-28].

Postoperative management was conducted according to the Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines (ver.4)[23]: The nasogastric tube was removed on postoperative day 1, and the abdominal drainage tube removed on postoperative day 5 without symptoms or inflammatory reactions. Abdominal CT, gastrointestinal tract angiography, or endoscopy was performed when an anastomotic leak was suspected.

Methylene blue testing technique

For the patients that underwent totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy, we performed IMBT as follows (Figure 1A): After the digestive tract reconstruction (Figure 2A and A’), the nasogastric tube (18F) was delivered 5 cm from the distal end of the anastomotic stoma, gauze was wrapped around the anastomosis, and then the jejunum was clamped using an intestinal clamp 5 cm distal to the anastomosis. Next, normal saline was injected through the nasogastric tube to rinse and observe whether continuous bright red liquid flowed out of the nasogastric tube when pumping back. If the liquid was detected, we looked for and stopped the bleeding and then flushed repeatedly until the clear liquid was pumped back out. Next, we dissolved 2 mL (20 mg) of methylene blue into 50 mL of normal saline and injected it through the nasogastric tube in order to make the methylene blue liquid disperse evenly around the anastomosis (Figure 2B and B’). Finally, we observed whether the gauze around the anastomosis was stained blue; if there was blue staining (Figure 3), we identified the leak according to the blue-stained site, sutured it, and then changed the gauze and repeated the process.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Schematic representation of intraoperative methylene blue testing. A: Overlap anastomosis; B: Billroth-II anastomosis.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Surgery pictures and schematic pictures of intraoperative methylene blue testing. A: Surgery picture of esophagojejunostomy (overlap method); A’: Schematic picture of esophagojejunostomy (overlap method); B: Surgery picture of intraoperative methylene blue testing in totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy; B’: Schematic picture of intraoperative methylene blue testing in totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy; C: Surgery picture of Billroth-II anastomosis; C’: Schematic picture of Billroth-II anastomosis; D: Surgery picture of intraoperative methylene blue testing in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy; D’: Schematic picture of intraoperative methylene blue testing in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Positive results of intraoperative methylene blue testing.

For the patients who underwent totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, IMBT was performed as follows (Figure 1B): The nasogastric tube (18F) was indwelled 5 cm from the distal end of the anastomotic stoma after the digestive tract reconstruction (Figure 2C and C’). Next, we wrapped the anastomosis with gauze, and closed it with clamps 5 cm distal to the anastomosis. Then, the anastomosis was flushed with normal saline through the nasogastric tube; the needle was pumped back to observe whether there was bright red liquid flowing out of the nasogastric tube. If red liquid was present, we looked for and stopped the bleeding. The flushing was repeated until the clear liquid was extracted from the nasogastric tube. Next, 5 mL (50 mg) of methylene blue was dissolved into 500 mL of normal saline and injected through the nasogastric tube in order to evenly distribute the methylene blue liquid around the anastomosis (Figure 2D and D’). Finally, if blue liquid was present, we repeated the above procedures.

Definitions

We defined preoperative complications as one or more of the following: Anemia, malnutrition, diabetes, or pulmonary dysfunction. The World Health Organization's definition of anemia was used to define anemia: Hb concentration of < 12 g/dL in women and < 13 g/dL in men[29]. Malnutrition was defined by the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) criteria[30], which suggested two methods used to diagnose malnutrition: Method one: Body mass index (BMI) < 18.5 kg/m2; method two: Unintentional weight loss combined with a low age-related BMI (< 20 kg/m2 in subjects < 70 years or < 22 kg/m2 in those ≥ 70 years) or low fat-free mass index (FFMI) (< 17 kg/m2 in men and < 15 kg/m2 in women). Positive IMBT was defined as the visualization of methylene blue on the gauze surrounding the anastomosis. PAL was defined as meeting one of the following criteria: (1) Gastrointestinal contents or bile-like fluid drained from the abdominal drainage tube; (2) Gastrointestinal radiography showed leakage of the contrast medium from the drainage tube; (3) Methylene blue was extracted from the abdominal drainage tube after the oral administration of methylene blue; (4) Abdominal CT examination showed that the gastrointestinal wall was incomplete, revealing gas and fluid leaks around the anastomosis; and (5) Anastomotic leaks were found under endoscopy after surgery.

Statistical analysis

Analyses were performed with statistic software SPSS for Windows Version 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, United States). Measurement data are expressed as the mean ± SD (normal distribution) or median (non-normal distribution). Count data are expressed as cases (rate). Univariate analysis was performed by the Chi-square test or a Fisher’s exact test when appropriate. Variables with P < 0.05 in the univariate analysis were included in multivariate analysis, which was conducted using the logistic regression model. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

From January 2017 to December 2019, a total of 513 patients that underwent totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy were analyzed retrospectively (211 patients in the IMBT group and 302 patients in the control group). Complete data of the intraoperative and postoperative findings are shown in Figure 4. The baseline data of the patients in the two groups are consistent, as shown in Table 1.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Schematic representation of study protocol and results. IMBT: Intraoperative methylene blue testing.

Table 1.

Demographic, surgical, and tumor characteristics of patients according to whether an intraoperative methylene blue testing was performed or not

Variable
IMBT group (211 cases)
Control group (302 cases)
χ2
P value
Gender Male 130 182 0.095 0.759
Female 81 120
Age (yr) < 75 143 196 0.457 0.499
≥ 75 68 106
BMI (kg/m2) < 25 155 211 0.784 0.376
≥ 25 56 91
Preoperative complications Present absent 88123 111191 1.282 0.257
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy Present absent 43168 61241 0.003 0.960
Degree of tumor differentiation High 72 92 0.785 0.672
Medium 95 142
Low 44 68
Postoperative tumor pathological stage1 I 32 62 3.298 0.192
II 62 94
III 117 146
Surgeon’s experience < 50 cases 21 24 0.624 0.429
≥ 50 cases 190 278
Mode of surgery TLTG 101 146 0.025 0.875
TLDG 111 156
Operation time < 4h 143 189 1.465 0.226
≥ 4h 68 113
Amount of bleeding ≥ 400 mL Present 79 100 1.024 0.312
Absent 132 202
Open in a new tab
1

According to the 8th AJCC TNM staging system for gastric cancer. IMBT: Intraoperative methylene blue testing; TLTG: Totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy; BMI: Body mass index; TLDG: Totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

Risk factors for positive IMBT

Seven patients (3.3%) had positive IMBT in the IMBT group, as detailed in Table 2. These cases were managed by additional suturing, none had a PAL, and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 10.3 ± 1.1 d. Univariate analysis showed that surgeons with insufficient surgical experience (< 50 cases of totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy) were associated with a higher rate of positive IMBT (14.3% vs 2.1%, P = 0.021). Other risk factors included operation time > 4 h, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and a body mass index (BMI) > 25 kg/m2 (P = 0.008, 0.033, and 0.021, respectively), as shown in Tables 3 and 4. Multivariate analysis identified BMI > 25 kg/m2, operation time > 4 h, and insufficient surgical experience as independent risk factors for positive IMBT (P = 0.009, 0.002, and 0.010, respectively), as detailed in Table 5.

Table 2.

Characteristics of positive intraoperative methylene blue testing

Patient No.
Location of leak on anastomotic wall
Operation model
Dehiscence
Management
PAL
Postoperative hospital stays (d)
1 Posterior wall TLTG Present Suturing No 10
2 Posterior wall TLTG Absent Suturing No 9
3 Posterior wall TLTG Absent Suturing No 11
4 Joint opening TLTG Absent Suturing No 10
5 Joint opening TLTG Absent Suturing No 11
6 Left wall TLDG Absent Suturing No 12
7 Left wall TLDG Present Suturing No 9
Open in a new tab

IMBT: Intraoperative methylene blue testing; PAL: Postoperative anastomotic leak; TLTG: Totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy; TLDG: Totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

Table 3.

Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients according to the results of intraoperative methylene blue testing and postoperative anastomotic leaks

Variable
IMBT group
IMBT
P value
Control group
PAL
P value
Negative
Positive (%)
Negative
Positive (%)
Cases 211 204 7 (3.3) - 302 289 13(4.3) -
Gender
Male 130 126 4 (3.1) 1.0 182 173 9 (4.9) 0.575
Female 81 78 3 (3.7) 120 116 4 (3.3)
Age (yr)
< 75 143 139 4 (2.8) 0.541 196 191 5 (2.6) 0.70
≥ 75 68 65 3 (4.4) 106 98 8 (7.5)
BMI (kg/m2)
< 25 155 153 2 (1.3) 0.021 211 206 5 (2.4) 0.025
≥ 25 56 51 5 (8.9) 91 83 8 (8.8)
Preoperative complications
Absent 123 120 3 (2.4) 0.454 191 187 4 (2.0) 0.018
Present 88 84 4 (4.5) 111 102 9 (8.1)
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Absent 168 165 3 (1.8) 0.033 241 234 7 (2.9) 0.028
Present 43 39 4 (9.3) 61 55 6 (9.8)
Degree of tumor differentiation
High 72 70 2 (2.8) 0.784 92 88 4 (4.3) 1.000
Medium 95 92 3 (3.2) 142 136 6 (4.2)
Low 44 42 2 (4.5) 68 65 3 (4.6)
Postoperative tumor pathological stage1
I 32 30 2 (6.3) 0.493 62 59 3 (4.8) 0.754
II 62 60 2 (3.2) 94 89 5 (5.3)
III 117 114 3 (2.6) 146 141 5 (3.4)
Open in a new tab
1

According to the 8th AJCC TNM staging system for gastric cancer. IMBT: Intraoperative methylene blue testing; PAL: Postoperative anastomotic leak; BMI: Body mass index.

Table 4.

Surgical variables according to the results of intraoperative methylene blue testing and postoperative anastomotic leaks

Variable IMBT group IMBT
P value Control group PAL
P value
Negative
Positive (%)
Negative
Positive (%)
Cases 211 204 7 (3.3) - 302 289 13 (4.3) -
Operation time (h)
< 4 143 142 1 (0.7) 0.008 184 177 7 (4.0) 0.577
≥ 4 68 62 6 (8.8) 118 112 6 (5.1)
Amount of bleeding (mL)
< 400 132 130 2 (1.5) 0.136 202 194 8 (4.0) 0.765
≥ 400 79 74 5 (6.3) 100 95 5 (5.0)
Mode of operation
TLTG 100 95 5 (5.0) 0.200 146 136 10 (6.8) 0.046
TLDG 111 109 2 (1.8) 156 153 3 (1.9)
Surgeon’s experience (cases)
< 50 21 18 3(14.3) 0.021 24 21 3 (12.5) 0.074
≥ 50 190 186 4 (2.1) 278 268 10 (3.6)
Open in a new tab

IMBT: Intraoperative methylene blue testing; PAL: Postoperative anastomotic leak; TLTG: Totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy; TLDG: Totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

Table 5.

Risk factors for positive intraoperative methylene blue testing and postoperative anastomotic leaks analyzed by multivariate analysis

Variable B Standard deviation Wald Exp(B) Odds ratio (95%CI)
P value
Lower limit
Upper limit
IMBT
BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 2.123 0.810 6.862 8.357 1.707 40.922 0.009
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy 1.326 0.805 2.715 3.767 0.778 18.245 0.099
Operation time ≥ 4 h 4.023 1.319 9.303 55.881 4.212 741.381 0.002
Inexperienced surgeons 2.727 1.052 6.719 15.286 1.944 120.167 0.010
PAL
BMI > 25 kg/m2 1.289 0.858 2.259 3.630 0.676 19.498 0.133
Preoperative complications 2.575 1.081 5.671 13.128 1.577 109.268 0.017
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy 1.967 0.740 7.063 7.150 1.676 30.506 0.008
TLTG 2.206 1.091 4.083 9.075 1.069 77.070 0.043
Open in a new tab

IMBT: Intraoperative methylene blue testing; PAL: Postoperative anastomotic leak; BMI: Body mass index; TLTG: Totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy.

Comparison of incidence of PALs

PAL occurred in 15 (2.9%) patients, including 2 in the IMBT group and 13 in the control group. The rate of PALs was significantly lower in the IMBT group than in the control group [2 of 211 patients (0.9%) vs 13 of 302 patients (4.3%), P = 0.0026].

Risk factors for PALs

The clinical characteristics of the patients with anastomotic leaks are shown in Table 6. The diagnosis time of PALs was 5.8 ± 2.0 d after surgery, postoperative hospital stay was 19.3 ± 3.5 d, and the abdominal drainage tube placement time was 17.3 ± 3.2 d. All 15 patients improved and were discharged from the hospital, and no one died. In the univariate analysis, patients with BMI > 25 kg/m2 (8.8% vs 2.4%, P = 0.025), preoperative complications (8.1% vs 2.0%, P = 0.018), totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (6.8% vs 1.9%, P = 0.046), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (9.8% vs 2.9%, P = 0.028) were associated with PALs, as shown in Tables 3 and 4. Multivariate analysis showed that preoperative complications (hazard ratio [HR] = 13.128, P = 0.017), totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (HR = 9.075, P = 0.043), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 7.150, P = 0.008) were independent risk factors for PALs (Table 5).

Table 6.

Characteristics of postoperative anastomotic leaks

Patient No.
Group
Day of diagnosis after surgery (d)
TLTG or TLDG
Tumor staging1
Procedure used for patients
Time of placement of abdominal drainage tube (d)
Postoperative Hospital stays (d)
1 IMBT group 6 TLTG IIB Drainage 15 16
2 IMBT group 8 TLTG IIIA Second surgery + Drainage 20 21
3 Control group 4 TLTG IA Drainage 18 19
4 Control group 5 TLTG IIA Drainage 13 15
5 Control group 9 TLTG IIB Drainage 19 21
6 Control group 8 TLTG IIB Drainage 12 14
7 Control group 5 TLTG IIIC Drainage 18 20
8 Control group 3 TLTG IIIC Drainage 16 18
9 Control group 8 TLTG IIB Second surgery + Drainage 21 24
10 Control group 7 TLTG IIIB Second surgery + Drainage 22 25
11 Control group 7 TLTG IIIC Second surgery + Drainage 17 21
12 Control group 5 TLDG IIIA Drainage 12 14
13 Control group 3 TLDG IIA Second surgery + Drainage 17 18
14 Control group 3 TLDG IIIA Second surgery + Drainage 19 20
15 Control group 6 TLDG IIIC Second surgery + Drainage 20 23
Open in a new tab
1

According to the 8th AJCC TNM staging system for gastric cancer. PAL: Postoperative anastomotic leak; TLTG: Totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy; TLDG: Totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

DISCUSSION

Anastomotic leaks are among the most common and severe complications after totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy and are the main risk factor for patients' postoperative death[8-10]. The integrity of the anastomosis, which is closely related to the anastomotic technique, is a prerequisite for tissue healing and is essential for preventing anastomotic leaks[6,12]. In totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy, we used IMBT to check the integrity of the anastomosis. The results showed that IMBT reduces the incidence of PALs, which is consistent with the IMBT results in open total gastrectomy[14].

Several methods are available to assess the integrity of the anastomosis. An intraoperative air leak test was proposed by Kanaji to check anastomotic integrity during open radical gastrectomy[6] and showed that this test reduces the occurrence of postoperative anastomotic leaks; however, the intraoperative air leak test did not show the exact site of the leaks and only depicted the approximate area. Celik et al[14] showed a low incidence of anastomotic leaks in the methylene blue testing group (3.7% vs 14.4%, P = 0.007) in which methylene blue is injected via a nasogastric tube to check the integrity of the anastomosis during an open total gastrectomy. Some researchers[31] who performed an intraoperative endoscopic examination during laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery showed a low incidence of anastomotic leaks (0 vs 8%, P = 0.0412) and a low reoperation rate (0 vs 8%, P = 0.0412). However, it is a challenge to find gastroscopic instruments as well as an experienced endoscopist. Our study confirmed that IMBT is an important method for assessing anastomotic integrity in totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy, which detects anastomoses and pinpoints the areas of the leaks. Furthermore, we examined the anastomosis during totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, whereas previous studies focused on esophagojejunal anastomotic leaks after total gastrectomy.

This study found seven IMBT-positive patients whose anastomosis was reinforced with sutures, and none of them developed PALs. Our study indicated that patients with an operative time > 4 h, those with a BMI > 25 kg/m2, and insufficient surgical experience were associated with a higher risk of positive IMBT. Previous studies have shown that technically relevant factors such as prolonged operative time, excessive BMI, and inexperience of the surgeon are strongly associated with the occurrence of PALs[6,32-33]. Therefore, we recommend performing IMBT in patients with these high-risk factors.

However, two patients (0.9%) with negative IMBT developed PALs in this study, meaning that the cause of the anastomotic leaks is complex. This study found that patients with preoperative complications, totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are at a higher risk for PALs. Previous studies have indicated that anemia, malnutrition, and pulmonary insufficiency are also strongly associated with the occurrence of PALs[13,32,34], and are consistent with the results of our study. Kawamura et al[35] showed that the rate of anastomotic leaks is significantly higher in the laparoscopic total gastrectomy group (5.0 %) than in the laparoscopic distal gastrectomy group (1.2%), which is consistent with our study. However, there is still controversy about whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy leads to PALs. Gorur et al[36] reported that chemotherapy affects cell proliferation and the formation of collagenous fiber, which is a key component of anastomotic healing. Some studies reported that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not increase the risk of PALs[37,38]. Our study suggested that neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a risk factor for PALs. We hypothesized that patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy have increased tissue toughness and adhesion within the abdominal cavity, resulting in increased surgical damage, thus leading to PALs. Therefore, we should pay close attention to patients with the above-mentioned risk factors.

This study has its limitations. First, it is a single-center retrospective study, which needs to be further confirmed by a multicenter, randomized controlled study with a larger sample size. Second, our study did not compare the IMBT, intraoperative air leak test, and intraoperative endoscopy. Finally, the methylene blue testing could not prevent PALs caused by non-technical factors.

CONCLUSION

In summary, IMBT can find technical defects within an anastomosis, and suturing can reduce the incidence of anastomotic leaks after totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. Independent risk factors associated with PALs include preoperative complications, totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

Research background

We hypothesized that intraoperative methylene blue testing (IMBT) could reduce the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leaks (PALs) in totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy.

Research motivation

IMBT, air leak testing, or endoscopy is used to assess the anastomotic integrity of esophagojejunostomy during open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. To the best of our konwledge, this is the first study to assess the anastomotic integrity during totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy.

Research objectives

To explore the effects of IMBT on the incidence of PALs and identify the risk factors for PALs in totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy.

Research methods

The difference in the incidence of PALs was compared between the IMBT group and the control group. Logistic regression analysis was used to clarify the risk factor for positive IMBT and PALs.

Research results

Positive IMBT was shown in 7 patients (3.3%) in the IMBT group, and no PAL occurred in these patients after suture reinforcement. Moreover, 15 patients (2.9%) developed PALs, and the rate of PALs was significantly lower in the IMBT group than in the control group [2 of 211 patients (0.9%) vs 13 of 302 patients (4.3%), P = 0.0026]. Further analysis demonstrated that preoperative complications (hazard ratio [HR] = 13.128, P = 0.017), totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (HR = 9.075, P = 0.043), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 7.150, P = 0.008) were independent risk factors for PALs.

Research conclusions

IMBT can find technical defects within an anastomosis, and suturing can reduce the incidence of PALs in totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. Independent risk factors associated with PAL include preoperative complications, totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Research perspectives

Randomized controlled trials are expected to be conducted to measure the effects of IMBT.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Zhu JF for his review of our statistics.

Footnotes

Institutional review board statement: This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital.

Informed consent statement: Patients were not required to give informed consent to the study because the analysis used anonymous clinical data that were obtained after each patient agreed to treatment by written consent.

Conflict-of-interest statement: We have no financial relationships to disclose.

Provenance and peer review: Unsolicited article; Externally peer reviewed.

Peer-review model: Single blind

Peer-review started: November 11, 2021

First decision: January 9, 2022

Article in press:April 4, 2022

Specialty type: Surgery

Country/Territory of origin: China

Peer-review report’s scientific quality classification

Grade A (Excellent): A

Grade B (Very good): 0

Grade C (Good): C

Grade D (Fair): 0

Grade E (Poor): 0

P-Reviewer: Surlin VM, Romania; van Helsdingen CP, Netherlands S-Editor: Wu YXJ L-Editor: Wang TQ P-Editor: Wu YXJ

Contributor Information

Chun Deng, Department of General Surgery, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an 710068, Shaanxi Province, China.

Yang Liu, Department of General Surgery, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an 710068, Shaanxi Province, China.

Zhen-Yu Zhang, Department of General Surgery, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an 710068, Shaanxi Province, China.

Heng-Duo Qi, Department of General Surgery, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an 710068, Shaanxi Province, China.

Zhi Guo, Department of General Surgery, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an 710068, Shaanxi Province, China.

Xu Zhao, Department of General Surgery, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an 710068, Shaanxi Province, China.

Xiao-Jun Li, Department of General Surgery, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an 710068, Shaanxi Province, China. lixiaojun20040912@163.com.

Data sharing statement

No additional data are available.

References

  • 1.Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lee JH, Nam BH, Ryu KW, Ryu SY, Park YK, Kim S, Kim YW. Comparison of outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted and open total gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1500–1505. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kim W, Kim HH, Han SU, Kim MC, Hyung WJ, Ryu SW, Cho GS, Kim CY, Yang HK, Park DJ, Song KY, Lee SI, Ryu SY, Lee JH, Lee HJ Korean Laparo-endoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study (KLASS) Group. Decreased Morbidity of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy Compared With Open Distal Gastrectomy for Stage I Gastric Cancer: Short-term Outcomes From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (KLASS-01) Ann Surg. 2016;263:28–35. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ajani JA, D'Amico TA, Bentrem DJ, Chao J, Corvera C, Das P, Denlinger CS, Enzinger PC, Fanta P, Farjah F, Gerdes H, Gibson M, Glasgow RE, Hayman JA, Hochwald S, Hofstetter WL, Ilson DH, Jaroszewski D, Johung KL, Keswani RN, Kleinberg LR, Leong S, Ly QP, Matkowskyj KA, McNamara M, Mulcahy MF, Paluri RK, Park H, Perry KA, Pimiento J, Poultsides GA, Roses R, Strong VE, Wiesner G, Willett CG, Wright CD, McMillian NR, Pluchino LA. Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17:855–883. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hyung WJ, Yang HK, Han SU, Lee YJ, Park JM, Kim JJ, Kwon OK, Kong SH, Kim HI, Lee HJ, Kim W, Ryu SW, Jin SH, Oh SJ, Ryu KW, Kim MC, Ahn HS, Park YK, Kim YH, Hwang SH, Kim JW, Cho GS. A feasibility study of laparoscopic total gastrectomy for clinical stage I gastric cancer: a prospective multi-center phase II clinical trial, KLASS 03. Gastric Cancer. 2019;22:214–222. doi: 10.1007/s10120-018-0864-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kanaji S, Ohyama M, Yasuda T, Sendo H, Suzuki S, Kawasaki K, Tanaka K, Fujino Y, Tominaga M, Kakeji Y. Can the intraoperative leak test prevent postoperative leakage of esophagojejunal anastomosis after total gastrectomy? Surg Today. 2016;46:815–820. doi: 10.1007/s00595-015-1243-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Katai H, Mizusawa J, Katayama H, Kunisaki C, Sakuramoto S, Inaki N, Kinoshita T, Iwasaki Y, Misawa K, Takiguchi N, Kaji M, Okitsu H, Yoshikawa T, Terashima M Stomach Cancer Study Group of Japan Clinical Oncology Group. Single-arm confirmatory trial of laparoscopy-assisted total or proximal gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage I gastric cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group study JCOG1401. Gastric Cancer. 2019;22:999–1008. doi: 10.1007/s10120-019-00929-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Aurello P, Cinquepalmi M, Petrucciani N, Moschetta G, Antolino L, Felli F, Giulitti D, Nigri G, D'Angelo F, Valabrega S, Ramacciato G. Impact of Anastomotic Leakage on Overall and Disease-free Survival After Surgery for Gastric Carcinoma: A Systematic Review. Anticancer Res. 2020;40:619–624. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.13991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sierzega M, Kolodziejczyk P, Kulig J Polish Gastric Cancer Study Group. Impact of anastomotic leakage on long-term survival after total gastrectomy for carcinoma of the stomach. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1035–1042. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yoo HM, Lee HH, Shim JH, Jeon HM, Park CH, Song KY. Negative impact of leakage on survival of patients undergoing curative resection for advanced gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2011;104:734–740. doi: 10.1002/jso.22045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kim SH, Son SY, Park YS, Ahn SH, Park DJ, Kim HH. Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage: A Retrospective Cohort Study in a Single Gastric Surgical Unit. J Gastric Cancer. 2015;15:167–175. doi: 10.5230/jgc.2015.15.3.167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Trapani R, Rausei S, Reddavid R, Degiuli M ITALIAN RESEARCH GROUP FOR GASTRIC CANCER (GIRCG) Clinical Investigators. Risk factors for esophago-jejunal anastomosis leakage after total gastrectomy for cancer. A multicenter retrospective study of the Italian research group for gastric cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46:2243–2247. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.06.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Migita K, Takayama T, Matsumoto S, Wakatsuki K, Enomoto K, Tanaka T, Ito M, Nakajima Y. Risk factors for esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage after elective gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:1659–1665. doi: 10.1007/s11605-012-1932-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Celik S, Almalı N, Aras A, Yılmaz Ö, Kızıltan R. Intraoperatively Testing the Anastomotic Integrity of Esophagojejunostomy Using Methylene Blue. Scand J Surg. 2017;106:62–67. doi: 10.1177/1457496916630652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Nishikawa K, Yanaga K, Kashiwagi H, Hanyuu N, Iwabuchi S. Significance of intraoperative endoscopy in total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2633–2636. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1007-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Alkatout I, Dhanawat J, Ackermann J, Freytag D, Peters G, Maass N, Mettler L, Pape JM. Video Feedback and Video Modeling in Teaching Laparoscopic Surgery: A Visionary Concept from Kiel. J Clin Med. 2021;10 doi: 10.3390/jcm10010163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pinzon D, Byrns S, Zheng B. Prevailing Trends in Haptic Feedback Simulation for Minimally Invasive Surgery. Surg Innov. 2016;23:415–421. doi: 10.1177/1553350616628680. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mortensen K, Nilsson M, Slim K, Schäfer M, Mariette C, Braga M, Carli F, Demartines N, Griffin SM, Lassen K Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Group. Consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. Br J Surg. 2014;101:1209–1229. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9582. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Liu H, Jin P, Quan X, Xie YB, Ma FH, Ma S, Li Y, Kang WZ, Tian YT. Feasibility of totally laparoscopic gastrectomy without prophylactic drains in gastric cancer patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2021;27:4236–4245. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i26.4236. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Son T, Sun J, Choi S, Cho M, Kwon IG, Kim HI, Cheong JH, Choi SH, Noh SH, Woo Y, Fong Y, Park S, Hyung WJ. Multi-institutional validation of the 8th AJCC TNM staging system for gastric cancer: Analysis of survival data from high-volume Eastern centers and the SEER database. J Surg Oncol. 2019;120:676–684. doi: 10.1002/jso.25639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ko CS, Choi NR, Kim BS, Yook JH, Kim MJ. Totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy using the modified overlap method and conventional open total gastrectomy: A comparative study. World J Gastroenterol. 2021;27:2193–2204. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i18.2193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yanagimoto Y, Omori T, Fujiwara Y, Demura K, Jeong-Ho M, Shinno N, Yamamoto K, Sugimura K, Miyata H, Ushigome H, Takahashi Y, Nishimura J, Yasui M, Asukai K, Yamada D, Wada H, Takahashi H, Ohue M, Yano M, Sakon M. Comparison of the intracorporeal triangular and delta-shaped anastomotic techniques in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an analysis with propensity score matching. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:2445–2453. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07025-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4) Gastric Cancer. 2017;20:1–19. doi: 10.1007/s10120-016-0622-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hatta W, Gotoda T, Oyama T, Kawata N, Takahashi A, Yoshifuku Y, Hoteya S, Nakamura K, Hirano M, Esaki M, Matsuda M, Ohnita K, Shimoda R, Yoshida M, Dohi O, Takada J, Tanaka K, Yamada S, Tsuji T, Ito H, Hayashi Y, Nakamura T, Shimosegawa T. Is radical surgery necessary in all patients who do not meet the curative criteria for endoscopic submucosal dissection in early gastric cancer? J Gastroenterol. 2017;52:175–184. doi: 10.1007/s00535-016-1210-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Park JY, Kim YJ. Uncut Roux-en-Y Reconstruction after Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy Can Be a Favorable Method in Terms of Gastritis, Bile Reflux, and Gastric Residue. J Gastric Cancer. 2014;14:229–237. doi: 10.5230/jgc.2014.14.4.229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.GBD 2017 Stomach Cancer Collaborators. The global, regional, and national burden of stomach cancer in 195 countries, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5:42–54. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30328-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Nakamura M, Nakamori M, Ojima T, Iwahashi M, Horiuchi T, Kobayashi Y, Yamade N, Shimada K, Oka M, Yamaue H. Randomized clinical trial comparing long-term quality of life for Billroth I vs Roux-en-Y reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2016;103:337–347. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kim MS, Kwon Y, Park EP, An L, Park H, Park S. Revisiting Laparoscopic Reconstruction for Billroth 1 Versus Billroth 2 Versus Roux-en-Y After Distal Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in the Modern Era. World J Surg. 2019;43:1581–1593. doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-04943-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. World Health Organization Haemoglobin Concentrations for the Diagnosis of Anaemia and Assessment of Severity. [cited 21 June 2021]; Available from: https://www.who.int/vmnis/indicators/haemoglobin/en/
  • 30.Cederholm T, Bosaeus I, Barazzoni R, Bauer J, Van Gossum A, Klek S, Muscaritoli M, Nyulasi I, Ockenga J, Schneider SM, de van der Schueren MA, Singer P. Diagnostic criteria for malnutrition - An ESPEN Consensus Statement. Clin Nutr. 2015;34:335–340. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2015.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Valenzuela-Salazar C, Rojano-Rodríguez ME, Romero-Loera S, Trejo-Ávila ME, Bañuelos-Mancilla J, Delano-Alonso R, Moreno-Portillo M. Intraoperative endoscopy prevents technical defect related leaks in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: A randomized control trial. Int J Surg. 2018;50:17–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.12.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Deguchi Y, Fukagawa T, Morita S, Ohashi M, Saka M, Katai H. Identification of risk factors for esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage after gastric surgery. World J Surg. 2012;36:1617–1622. doi: 10.1007/s00268-012-1559-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chen HN, Chen XZ, Zhang WH, Yang K, Chen XL, Zhang B, Chen ZX, Chen JP, Zhou ZG, Hu JK. The Impact of Body Mass Index on the Surgical Outcomes of Patients With Gastric Cancer: A 10-Year, Single-Institution Cohort Study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e1769. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gong W, Li J. Combat with esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A critical review of the literature. Int J Surg. 2017;47:18–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.09.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kawamura Y, Satoh S, Suda K, Ishida Y, Kanaya S, Uyama I. Critical factors that influence the early outcome of laparoscopic total gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer. 2015;18:662–668. doi: 10.1007/s10120-014-0392-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gorur M, Sozutek A, Irkorucu O, Karakaya B. The influence of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on colonic anastomosis healing impaired by intraperitoneal 5-flourouracil application. An experimental study. Acta Cir Bras. 2020;35:e202000504. doi: 10.1590/s0102-865020200050000004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Haskins IN, Kroh MD, Amdur RL, Ponksy JL, Rodriguez JH, Vaziri K. The Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation on Anastomotic Leak and Additional 30-Day Morbidity and Mortality in Patients Undergoing Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21:1577–1583. doi: 10.1007/s11605-017-3496-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Schuhmacher C, Gretschel S, Lordick F, Reichardt P, Hohenberger W, Eisenberger CF, Haag C, Mauer ME, Hasan B, Welch J, Ott K, Hoelscher A, Schneider PM, Bechstein W, Wilke H, Lutz MP, Nordlinger B, Van Cutsem E, Siewert JR, Schlag PM. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with surgery alone for locally advanced cancer of the stomach and cardia: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized trial 40954. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:5210–5218. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.6114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

No additional data are available.

Articles from World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery are provided here courtesy of Baishideng Publishing Group Inc

RESOURCES