Can the intraoperative leak test prevent postoperative leakage of esophagojejunal anastomosis after total gastrectomy?

A comparison of the postoperative outcomes between intraoperative leak testing and no intraoperative leak testing for gastric cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative anastomotic leakage (PAL) is a serious complication of gastric cancer surgery. Although perioperative management has made considerable progress, anastomotic leakage (AL) cannot always be avoided. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether intraoperative leak testing (IOLT) can reduce the incidence of PAL and other postoperative outcomes in gastric cancer surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this meta-analysis, we searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for clinical trials to assess the application of IOLT in gastric cancer surgery. All patients underwent laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer surgery. Studies comparing the postoperative outcomes of IOLT and no intraoperative leak testing (NIOLT) were included. Quality assessment, heterogeneity, risk of bias, and the level of evidence of the included studies were evaluated. PAL, anastomotic-related complications, 30-day mortality, and reoperation rates were compared between the IOLT and NIOLT group.

RESULTS

Our literature search returned 721 results, from which six trials (a total of 1,666 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity was low. The primary outcome was PAL. IOLT reduced the incidence of PAL [2.09% vs 6.68%; (RR = 0.31, 95% Cl 0.19-0.53, P < 0.0001]. Anastomotic-related complications, which included bleeding, leakage, and stricture, were significantly higher in the NIOLT group than in the IOLT group [3.24% VS 10.85%; RR = 0.30, 95% Cl 0.18-0.53, P < 0.0001]. Moreover, IOLT was associated with lower reoperation rates [0.94% vs 6.83%; RR = 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.43, P = 0.0002].

CONCLUSION

Considering the observed lower incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage (PAL), anastomotic-related complications, and reoperation rates, IOLT appears to be a promising option for gastric cancer surgery. It warrants further study before potential inclusion in future clinical guidelines.

Efficacy and safety of anastomotic leak testing in gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Anastomosis-related complications such as bleeding, leakage, and strictures, continue to be serious complications of gastric cancer surgery. Presently, these complications have yet to be reliably prevented. Here we design a comprehensive leak testing procedure which combines gastroscopy, air, and methylene blue (GAM) leak testing. We aimed to evaluated the efficacy and safety of the GAM procedure in patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-85 years without an unresectable factor as confirmed via CT were enrolled in a prospective randomized clinical trial at a tertiary referral teaching hospital and were randomly assigned to two groups: intraoperative leak testing group (IOLT) and no intraoperative leak testing group (NIOLT). The primary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative anastomosis-related complications in the two groups.

RESULTS

148 patients were initially randomly assigned to the IOLT group (n = 74) and to the NIOLT group (n = 74) between September 2018 and September 2022. After exclusions, 70 remained in the IOLT group and 68 in the NIOLT group. In the IOLT group, 5 patients (7.1%) were found to have anastomotic defects intraoperatively, which included anastomotic discontinuity, bleeding, and strictures. The NIOLT group had a higher incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage compared to the IOLT group: 4 patients (5.8%) vs 0 patients (0%), respectively. No GAM-related complications were observed.

CONCLUSION

The GAM procedure is an intraoperative leak test that can be performed safely and efficiently after a laparoscopic total gastrectomy. GAM anastomotic leak testing may effectively prevent technical defect-related anastomotic complications in patients with gastric cancer who undergo a gastrectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT04292496.

Treatment and Prevention of Postoperative Leakage after Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Anastomotic leakage is one of the common causes of serious morbidity and death after gastrectomy. The use of surgical treatment for leakage decreased due to the development of nonsurgical management. However, if nonsurgical management fails to control the spread of intra-abdominal infection, emergency surgical treatment is required. The authors wished to determine in which cases surgical treatment is needed for postoperative leakage and to identify treatment and prevention strategies. If a patient's vital signs are stable, local abscesses can be cured by conservative treatment after percutaneous drain insertion; if there is no improvement in anastomotic leakage, endoscopic treatment such as clipping, vacuum, and stent placement can be performed. If a patient's vital signs are unstable or patient shows diffuse peritonitis, surgical treatment should be performed. A surgical plan can be established according to leakage location. The duodenal stump may first require conservative treatment. It is recommended that surgical treatment be attempted first for anastomotic leakage of gastrojejunostomy site and gastric stump in remnant stomach. In conclusion, the need for surgical treatment is determined depending on vital signs and presence of diffuse peritonitis. During surgical treatment, a strategic approach is required according to the patient's condition and the anatomical location of leakage.

A Novel Intraoperative Leak Test Procedure (GAM Procedure) to Prevent Postoperative Anastomotic Leakage in Gastric Cancer Patients Who Underwent Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage following a radical gastrectomy is a serious complication of gastric cancer and esophagogastric junction cancer. The benefit of intraoperative leak testing for the prevention of postoperative anastomotic leakage has been controversial. We introduce a new procedure, which combines the techniques of gastroscopy, air, and methylene blue (GAM) for intraoperative leakage testing. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the GAM procedure for intraoperative leak testing and to compare the surgical complications of gastric cancer patients who underwent gastrectomy with and without intraoperative leak testing using the GAM procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 210 patients who underwent radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the intraoperative leak testing group using the GAM procedure (IOLT), and the group for which no intraoperative leak testing was done (NIOLT). Clinical and pathologic characteristics, the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage, and other surgical complications were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

There were 82 patients in the IOLT group and 82 patients in the NIOLT group after propensity score matching. In the IOLT group, 4 (4.9%) patients were found to have anastomotic discontinuity during the operation; we repaired these anastomotic discontinuities intraoperatively. The incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage was higher in the NIOLT group compared with the IOLT group, 6 (7.3%) versus 0 (0%), respectively ( P =0.01). The average time of the GAM procedure was 4.99±1.75 minutes. The surgical time was prolonged by 30 minutes in the IOLT group compared with the NIOLT group, 302.2±79.9 versus 272.1±85.2, respectively ( P =0.02). The length of hospital stay, 15.80±4.55 versus 17.00±6.20 ( P =0.16) was reduced in the IOLT group compared with the NIOLT group. The logistic regression model suggested that IOLT, sex, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, cT stage, tumor diameter, pT stage, pN stage, and Lauren classification were not risk factors for postoperative complication.

CONCLUSIONS

The GAM procedure of intraoperative leakage testing can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage in gastric cancer patients undergoing gastrectomy.

Jejunal Mesentery Preservation Reduces Leakage at Esophagojejunostomy After Minimally Invasive Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: a Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

PURPOSE

The mesentery of the jejunum (MJ) of the Roux limb is conventionally divided when Roux-en-Y reconstruction is performed after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC). However, the impact of dividing or preserving the MJ on anastomotic leakage (AL) at the esophagojejunostomy (EJS) site after minimally invasive total gastrectomy for GC is unclear.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study enrolled 226 patients with GC who underwent EJS after laparoscopic or robotic total gastrectomy, including preservation of the MJ (n = 87) and division of the MJ (n = 137). The prevalence of anastomotic complications at the EJS and short-term outcomes were compared between groups using propensity score (PS) matching.

RESULTS

After PS matching, 69 patients were selected for the preserving and dividing MJ groups. There were no significant intergroup differences in patient backgrounds, including oncological stage, body mass index, and gender ratio. After PS matching, overall and severe complications after surgery were compared between the preserving and dividing MJ groups (21.7% vs. 27.5%, p = 0.554 and 8.7% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.137, respectively). However, the rate of AL at the EJS was significantly lower in the preserving than that in the dividing MJ group (1.4% vs. 13.0%, p = 0.017). In addition, the median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the preserving than that in the dividing MJ group (13.0 days vs. 16.0 days, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Preserving the MJ significantly reduced AL at the EJS after minimally invasive total gastrectomy for GC.

Predictive Factors for Anastomotic Leakage after Laparoscopic and Open Total Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review

The aim of this systematic review is to identify patient-related, perioperative and technical risk factors for esophago-jejunal anastomotic leakage (EJAL) in patients undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC). A comprehensive literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases was performed. Studies providing factors predictive of EJAL by uni- and multivariate analysis or an estimate of association between EJAL and related risk factors were included. All studies were assessed for methodological quality, and a narrative synthesis of the results was performed. A total of 16 studies were included in the systematic review, with a total of 42,489 patients who underwent gastrectomy with esophago-jejunal anastomosis. Age, BMI, impaired respiratory function, prognostic nutritional index (PNI), alcohol consumption, chronic renal failure, diabetes and mixed-type histology were identified as patient-related risk factors for EJAL at multivariate analysis. Likewise, among operative factors, laparoscopic approach, anastomosis type, additional organ resection, blood loss, intraoperative time and surgeon experience were found to be predictive factors for the development of EJAL. In clinical setting, we are able to identify several risk factors for EJAL. This can improve the recognition of higher-risk patients and their outcomes.

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

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.

Incidence and treatment outcomes of leakage after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Experience of 14,075 patients from a large volume centre

INTRODUCTION

Leakage is a serious and potentially fatal complication of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, comprehensive reports regarding leakage after gastrectomy remain limited. We aimed to evaluate the incidence and treatment outcomes of leakage after gastrectomy for cancer.

METHODS

We reviewed the prospectively collected data of 14,075 Patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer between 2005 and 2017. Outcomes included incidence, risk factors of leakage, and leakage treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

The median day of leakage detection was postoperative day 7 (range 1-29days). The overall leakage incidence was 1.51% (213/14,075), and the most frequent location was the oesophagojejunostomy (2.07%). Leakage after total gastrectomy was more frequent with minimally invasive surgery (open:1.64%, laparoscopic:3.56%, robotic:5.83%; P < 0.001). Leakage incidence was higher in the surgeon's initial 100 cases than in later cases (2.4 vs. 1.3%; P < 0.001), especially with minimally invasive surgery. Early leakage (within 4 days of surgery) occurred more often after minimally invasive surgery (open:12.7%, laparoscopic:35.4%, robotic:29.0%; P = 0.006). The success rate for initial treatment of leakage was 70.4% (150/213). Surgery after initial treatment failure demonstrated a higher success rate for early leakage than for late leakage (80.0 vs. 22.2%). Among 213 patients who experienced leakage, fifteen patients (7.0%) died, and leakage-related mortality accounted for 38.5% (15/39) of all surgery-related mortality after gastrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Leakage after gastric cancer surgery is associated with high mortality. Improved surgeon experience using minimally invasive techniques is required to reduce the risk of leakage. Surgery is an effective treatment for early leakage, although further studies are needed to establish the most appropriate treatment strategies.

Early detection of complications: anastomotic leakage

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most critical and detrimental complications in esophageal surgery. Early diagnosis and timely therapeutic action are necessary if patients are to avoid AL-related problems. However, there is no gold standard or consensus for early diagnosis. In this review, we focus on summarizing the definition and types of AL and modalities for early diagnosis of AL after esophagectomy.

Esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage following gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage (EJAL) is a serious complication of total or proximal gastrectomy for gastric cancer, with a reported incidence of 2.1-14.6% and mortality of up to 50%. EJAL is an independent prognostic factor for the poor survival of gastric cancer patients. Meticulous surgical techniques, experience with anastomotic devices, and a thorough understanding of various risk factors and preventive measures are essential and early diagnosis is critical for preventing EJAL-related death. Patients with suspected EJAL must be evaluated promptly, but contrast swallow is not recommended. There is no standard treatment strategy for EJAL, although conservative treatment with drainage and nutritional support is the most common approach. Effective endoscopic treatments have been reported but need further validation. Surgical treatment is associated with high mortality but should be considered to prevent death from suboptimal EJAL management, for patients with severe sepsis or when conservative treatment has failed.

Towards optimal intraoperative conditions in esophageal surgery: A review of literature for the prevention of esophageal anastomotic leakage

BACKGROUND

Esophageal anastomotic leakage (EAL) is a severe complication following gastric and esophageal surgery for cancer. Several non-modifiable, patient or surgery related risk factors for EAL have been identified, however, the contribution of modifiable intraoperative parameters remains undetermined. This review provides an overview of current literature on potentially modifiable intraoperative risk factors for EAL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched by two researchers independently. Clinical studies published in English between 1970 and January 2017 that evaluated the effect of intraoperative parameters on the development of EAL were included. Levels of evidence as defined by the Centre of Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) were assigned to the studies.

RESULTS

A total of 25 articles were included in the final analysis. These articles show evidence that anemia, increased amount of blood loss, low pH and high pCO2 values, prolonged duration of procedure and lack of surgical experience independently increase the risk of EAL. Supplemental oxygen therapy, epidural analgesia and selective digestive decontamination seem to have a beneficial effect. Potential risk factors include blood pressure, requirement of blood products, vasopressor use and glucocorticoid administration, however the results are ambiguous.

CONCLUSION

Apart from fixed surgical and patient related factors, several intraoperative factors that can be modified in clinical practice can influence the risk of developing EAL. More prospective, observational studies are necessary focusing on modifiable intraoperative parameters to assess more evidence and to elucidate optimal values of these factors.

Combat with esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A critical review of the literature

Esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage (EJAL) is considered to be one of the most serious complications after total gastrectomy (TG), despite improvements in surgical instruments and technique. The occurrence of EJAL would cause poorer quality of life, prolonged hospital stay, and increased surgery-related costs and mortality. Although there is ever-increasing knowledge about EJAL, the optimal management is controversial. In the present review, we aim to demonstrate the effective management by focus on the possible risk factors, potentially useful preventive strategies, and several kinds of treatments in esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Anastomotic complications after laparoscopic total gastrectomy with esophagojejunostomy constructed by circular stapler (OrVil™) versus linear stapler (overlap method)

BACKGROUND

Esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is the most technically difficult type of anastomosis; thus, anastomotic complications such as leakage and stenosis sometimes occur. Identification of the safest anastomotic procedure is important for successful LTG. We have performed LTG since 2004 either with a circular stapler using an OrVil^™ anvil or via the overlap Orringer method with a linear stapler. This retrospective study aimed to determine which method results in a lower incidence of anastomotic complications in patients undergoing LTG.

METHODS

Data on 188 consecutive patients who underwent LTG between April 2004 and August 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into those who underwent esophagojejunostomy performed via a circular stapler using an OrVil^™ anvil (group C, n = 49) or via the overlap method (group L, n = 139).

RESULTS

Anastomotic complications occurred in five of 188 esophagojejunostomies (2.7%). They comprised three cases of leakage (1.6%), and two of stenosis (1.1%). There was no significant difference in patient characteristics or hematological variables between groups C and L. There was no significant difference between groups in operation time, blood loss, lymph node dissection, and intraoperative anastomotic problems. The rate of anastomotic complications was significantly lower in group L (0.7%, 1/139) than in group C (8.2%, 4/49; p = 0.005). In particular, anastomotic leakage in group L tended to be lower (0.7% 1/139) than in group C (4.1% 2/49), although this difference was not significant. The rate of anastomotic stenosis in group L was significantly lower (0%, 0/139) than in group C (4.1%, 2/49; p = 0.017). Furthermore multivariate analysis showed anastomotic procedure was an independent factor for anastomotic complication.

CONCLUSIONS

There were fewer anastomotic complications after overlap esophagojejunostomy than after esophagojejunostomy via the OrVil^™ procedure, especially regarding anastomotic stenosis. We therefore recommend the overlap technique when performing esophagojejunostomy.

Linear-Stapled Side-to-Side Esophagojejunostomy with Hand-Sewn Closure of the Common Enterotomy After Prophylactic and Therapeutic Total Gastrectomy

After total gastrectomy, anastomosis-related complications such as leak or stricture can be highly morbid. Between July 2005 and December 2015, a linear-stapled side-to-side esophagojejunostomy with hand-sewn closure of the common enterotomy (modified Orringer technique) was used for Roux-en-Y reconstruction after prophylactic total gastrectomy in 22 germline CDH1 mutation carriers and after therapeutic total gastrectomy in 18 patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma. All operations were performed by the same surgeon. No patient in either cohort developed a clinically evident anastomotic leak, one patient (2.5%) developed a contained radiographic leak that healed without intervention, and one patient (2.5%) developed an anastomotic stricture treated by endoscopic dilatation 7 months after operation. These rates were lower than radiographic leak and stricture rates in a comparison group of 32 patients who received a completely hand-sewn esophagojejunostomy (6.3 and 3.1%, respectively). Here, we describe how to perform the linear-stapled esophagojejunostomy anastomosis.

Emerging Trends in the Etiology, Prevention, and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Anastomotic Leakage

Anastomotic leaks represent one of the most alarming complications following any gastrointestinal anastomosis due to the substantial effects on post-operative morbidity and mortality of the patient with long-lasting effects on the functional and oncologic outcomes. There is a lack of consensus related to the definition of an anastomotic leak, with a variety of options for prevention and management. A number of patient-related and technical risk factors have been found to be associated with the development of an anastomotic leak and have inspired the development of various preventative measures and technologies. The International Multispecialty Anastomotic Leak Global Improvement Exchange group was convened to establish a consensus on the definition of an anastomotic leak as well as to discuss the various diagnostic, preventative, and management measures currently available.

Prevention of Perioperative Anastomotic Healing Complications: Anastomotic Stricture and Anastomotic Leak

The anastomotic healing complications of postoperative leak and stricture continue to plague surgeons despite many broadly targeted interventions. Evaluation of preventive measure efficacy is difficult due to inconsistent definitions and reporting of these complications. Few interventions have been shown to impact rates of leakage or stricture. However, new evidence is emerging that the intestinal microbiota can play an important role in the development of anastomotic complications. A more holistic approach to understanding the mechanisms of anastomotic complications is needed in order to develop tailored interventions to reduce their frequency. Such an approach may require a more complete definition of the role of the microbiota in anastomotic healing.

Intraoperatively Testing the Anastomotic Integrity of Esophagojejunostomy Using Methylene Blue

Background:

Intraoperative testing of gastrointestinal anastomosis effectively ensures anastomotic integrity. This study investigated whether the routine use of methylene blue intraoperatively identified leaks to reduce the postoperative proportion of clinical leaks.

Methods:

This study retrospectively analyzed consecutive total gastrectomies performed from January 2007 to December 2014 in a university hospital setting by a general surgical group that exclusively used the methylene blue test. All surgeries were performed for gastric or junctional cancers (n = 198). All reconstructions (Roux-en Y esophagojejunostomy) were performed using a stapler. The methylene blue test was used in 108 cases (group 1) via a nasojejunal tube. No test was performed for the other 90 cases (group 2). Intraoperative leakage rate, postoperative clinical leakage rate, length of hospitalization, and mortality rate were the outcome measures.

Results:

The intraoperative leakage rate was 7.4% in group 1. The postoperative clinical leakage rate was 8.6%. The postoperative clinical leakage rate was 3.7% in group 1 and 14.4% in group 2 (p = 0.007). There were no postoperative clinical leaks when an intraoperative leak led to concomitant intraoperative repair. The median length of hospital stay was 6 days in group 1 and 8 days in group 2 (p < 0.001). One death occurred in each group. No test-related complications were observed.

Conclusion:

The methylene blue test for esophagojejunostomy is a safe and reliable method for the assessment of anastomosis integrity, especially in cases with difficult esophagojejunostomic construction.