Gastric Ischemic Conditioning Prior to Esophagectomy Is Associated with Decreased Stricture Rate and Overall Anastomotic Complications

The Effect of Laparoscopic Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Prior to Esophagectomy on Anastomotic Stricture Rate and Comparison with Esophagectomy-Alone Controls

BACKGROUND

Benign anastomotic stricture is a recognized complication following esophagectomy. Laparoscopic gastric ischemic preconditioning (LGIP) prior to esophagectomy has been associated with decreased anastomotic leak rates; however, its effect on stricture and the need for subsequent endoscopic intervention is not well studied.

METHODS

This was a case-control study at an academic medical center using consecutive patients undergoing oncologic esophagectomies (July 2012-July 2022). Our institution initiated an LGIP protocol on 1 January 2021. The primary outcome was the occurrence of stricture within 1 year of esophagectomy, while secondary outcomes were stricture severity and frequency of interventions within the 6 months following stricture. Bivariable comparisons were performed using Chi-square, Fisher's exact, or Mann-Whitney U tests. Multivariable regression controlling for confounders was performed to generate risk-adjust odds ratios and to identify the independent effect of LGIP.

RESULTS

Of 253 esophagectomies, 42 (16.6%) underwent LGIP prior to esophagectomy. There were 45 (17.7%) anastomotic strictures requiring endoscopic intervention, including three patients who underwent LGIP and 42 who did not. Median time to stricture was 144 days. Those who underwent LGIP were significantly less likely to develop anastomotic stricture (7.1% vs. 19.9%; p = 0.048). After controlling for confounders, this difference was no longer significant (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.14-1.82; p = 0.29). Of those who developed stricture, there was a trend toward less severe strictures and decreased need for endoscopic dilation in the LGIP group (all p < 0.20).

CONCLUSION

LGIP may reduce the rate and severity of symptomatic anastomotic stricture following esophagectomy. A multi-institutional trial evaluating the effect of LGIP on stricture and other anastomotic complications is warranted.

Short-term Outcomes of Different Techniques for Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Before Esophagectomy: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ischemia at the anastomotic site plays a critical role determinant in the development of anastomosis-related complications after esophagectomy. Gastric ischemic conditioning (GIC) before esophagectomy has been described to improve the vascular perfusion at the tip of the gastric conduit with a potential effect on anastomotic leak (AL) and stenosis (AS) risk minimization. Laparoscopic (LapGIC) and angioembolization (AngioGIC) techniques have been reported.

PURPOSE

Compare short-term outcomes among different GIC techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analysis. One-step esophagectomy (noGIC), LapGIC, and AngioGIC were compared. Primary outcomes were AL, AS, and gastric conduit necrosis (GCN). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were used to assess relative inference.

RESULTS

Overall, 1760 patients (14 studies) were included. Of those, 1028 patients (58.4%) underwent noGIC, 593 (33.6%) LapGIC, and 139 (8%) AngioGIC. AL was reduced for LapGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.68; 95% CrI 0.47-0.98) and AngioGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.52; 95% CrI 0.31-0.93). Similarly, AS was reduced for LapGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.32; 95% CrI 0.12-0.68) and AngioGIC versus noGIC (RR=1.30; 95% CrI 0.65-2.46). The indirect comparison, assessed with the network methodology, did not show any differences for LapGIC versus AngioGIC in terms of postoperative AL and AS risk. No differences were found for GCN, pulmonary complications, overall complications, hospital length of stay, and 30-day mortality among different treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to noGIC, both LapGIC and AngioGIC before esophagectomy seem equivalent and associated with a reduced risk for postoperative AL and AS.

Laparoscopic ischemic conditioning prior esophagectomy in selected patients: the ISCON trial

Anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophagectomy is the most impactful complication after esophagectomy. Ischemic conditioning (ISCON) of the stomach >14 days prior to esophagectomy might reduce the incidence of AL. The current trial was conducted to prospectively investigate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic ISCON in selected patients. This international multicenter feasibility trial included patients with esophageal cancer at high risk for AL with major calcifications of the thoracic aorta or a stenosis in the celiac trunk. Patients underwent laparoscopic ISCON by occlusion of the left gastric and the short gastric arteries followed by esophagectomy after an interval of 12-18 days. The primary endpoint was complications Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade 2 after ISCON and before esophagectomy. Between November 2019 and January 2022, 20 patients underwent laparoscopic ISCON followed by esophagectomy. Out of 20, 16 patients (80%) underwent neoadjuvant treatment. The median duration of the laparoscopic ISCON procedure was 45 minutes (range: 25-230). None of the patients developed intraoperative or postoperative complications after ISCON. Hospital stay after ISCON was median 2 days (range: 2-4 days). Esophagectomy was completed in all patients after a median of 14 days (range: 12-28). AL occurred in three patients (15%), and gastric tube necrosis occurred in one patient (5%). In hospital, the 30-day and 90-day mortalities were 0%. Laparoscopic ISCON of the gastric conduit is feasible and safe in selected esophageal cancer patients with an impaired vascular status. Further studies have to prove whether this innovative strategy aids to reduce the incidence of AL.

Effect of gastric ischemic conditioning prior to esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Ischemia at the anastomotic site is thought to be a protagonist in the development of anastomosis-related complications while different strategies to overcome this problem have been reported. Gastric ischemic conditioning (GIC) prior to esophagectomy has been described with this intent. Evaluate the effect of GIC on anastomotic complications after esophagectomy. Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed were investigated up to March 31st, 2023. We considered articles that appraised short-term outcomes after GIC vs. no GIC in patients undergoing esophagectomy. Anastomotic leak (AL), anastomotic stricture (AS), and gastric conduit necrosis (GCN) were primary outcomes. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to calculate related inference. Fourteen studies (1760 patients) were included. Of those, 732 (41.6%) underwent GIC, while 1028 (58.4%) underwent one-step esophagectomy. Compared with no GIC, GIC was related to a reduced RR for AL (R RR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.47-0.86; p < 0.01) and AS (RR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.29-0.91; p = 0.02), whereas no differences were found for GCN (RR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.19-1.61; p = 0.28). Postoperative pneumonia (RR = 1.09; p = 0.99), overall complications (RR = 0.87; p = 0.19), operative time (SMD - 0.58; p = 0.07), hospital stay (SMD 0.66; p = 0.09), and 30-day mortality (RR = 0.69; p = 0.22) were comparable. GIC prior to esophagectomy seems associated with a reduced risk for AL and AS. Further studies are necessary to identify the subset of patients who can benefit from this procedure, the optimal technique, and the timing of GIC prior to esophagectomy.

Minimally invasive laparo-thoracoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with semi-mechanical triangular anastomosis: Short-term outcomes of 114 consecutive patients

INTRODUCTION

Several surgical teams have developed so-called minimally invasive esophagectomy techniques with the intention of decreasing post-operative complications. The goal of this report is to determine the feasibility, reproducibility, morbidity and mortality of esophagectomy and intrathoracic anastomosis via thoracoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective series included 114 consecutive non-selected patients who underwent Lewis Santy type esophagectomy between 2016 and 2020. The procedure was performed via abdominal laparoscopy, thoracoscopy with the patient in a supine position, without selective intubation, with intra-thoracic semi-mechanical triangular esophagogastric anastomosis.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 62.8years. Conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy was required in three patients (2.6%); no patient required conversion from thoracoscopy to thoracotomy. A semi-mechanical triangular esophagogastric anastomosis was successfully performed in all patients. Median duration of hospital stay was 16 (8-116) days. Mortality was 2.6%; 34 patients (29.8%) had major complications, 55 (48%) had a respiratory complication. The leakage rate was 12.3%; most were type I. Only 5.2% required an additional procedure. There was no mortality.

CONCLUSION

The analysis of this consecutive series found that this operative technique was reproducible and reliable. These results need to be confirmed by other studies. Pulmonary morbidity was high and remains the main challenge in this type of surgery.

Totally mechanical Collard versus circular stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis for minimally invasive esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have proposed that the totally mechanical Collard (TMC) method may reduce anastomotic leakage and stricture. This study aimed to compare the TMC method and the circular stapled (CS) method for cervical anastomosis after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

From May 2017 to September 2020, 308 patients (165 in the CS group and 143 in the TMC group) were included in this study. The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage and anastomotic stricture within 12 months. Propensity score matching was used to control potential selection bias.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, and refractory stricture (≥ 3 dilations) occurred in 30 (9.7%), 28 (9.1%), and 18 (5.8%) patients, respectively. The rate of anastomotic leak was similar in the CS and TMC methods (9.7 vs. 9.8%; P = 0.978), but anastomotic stricture (3.5 vs. 13.9%; P = 0.001) and refractory stricture (2.8 vs. 9.1%, P = 0.022) occurred less frequently in the TMC method. Propensity score matching yielded 128 patient pairs and confirmed these results. Multivariable analyses found that CS method, anastomotic leakage, and diabetes were independent predictors for both anastomotic stricture and refractory stricture. Subgroup analysis revealed that for patients with anastomotic leakage, the postoperative hospital stay in the TMC group was significantly longer than that in the CS group.

CONCLUSION

In cervical anastomosis after MIE, the TMC method is superior to the CS method regarding anastomotic stricture and refractory stricture formation. However, compared to the CS method, the TMC method cannot lower the probability of anastomotic leakage, and anastomotic leakage with the TMC method requires a longer healing time.

Gastric ischemic conditioning prior to esophagectomy reduces anastomotic leaks and strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastric ischemic conditioning (GIC) is a strategy to promote neovascularization of the gastric conduit to reduce the risk of anastomotic complications following esophagectomy. Despite a number of studies and reviews published on the concept of ischemic conditioning, there remains no clear consensus regarding its utility. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the impact of GIC, particularly on anastomotic leaks, conduit ischemia, and strictures.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was performed on February 5th, 2020 by a university librarian after selection of key search terms with the research team. Inclusion criteria included human participants undergoing esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction, age ≥ 18, N ≥ 5, and GIC performed prior to esophagectomy. Our primary outcome of interest was anastomotic leaks. Our secondary outcome was gastric conduit ischemia, anastomotic strictures, and overall survival. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.4.1 using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 1712 preliminary studies were identified and 23 studies included for final review. GIC was performed in 1178 (53.5%) patients. Meta-analysis revealed reduced odds of anastomotic leaks (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.46-0.97; I² = 5%; p = 0.03) and anastomotic strictures (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.29-0.80; I² = 65%; p = 0.005). Meta-analysis revealed no difference in odds of conduit ischemia (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.13-1.23; I² = 0%; p = 0.11) and no difference in odds of overall survival (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.29-1.02; I² = 22%; p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

GIC is associated with reduced odds of anastomotic leaks and anastomotic strictures and may decrease morbidity in patients undergoing esophagectomy. Further prospective randomized trials are needed to better identify the optimal patient population, timing, and techniques used to best achieve GIC.

A Novel Technique to Improve Anastomotic Perfusion Prior to Esophageal Surgery: Hybrid Ischemic Preconditioning of the Stomach. Preclinical Efficacy Proof in a Porcine Survival Model

Simple Summary

Esophagectomy has a high rate of anastomotic complications thought to be caused by poor perfusion of the gastric graft, which is used to restore the continuity of the gastrointestinal tract. Ischemic gastric preconditioning (IGP), performed by partially destroying preoperatively the gastric vessels either by means of interventional radiology or surgically, might improve the gastric conduit perfusion. Both approaches have downsides. The timing, extent and mechanism of IGP remain unclear. A novel hybrid IGP method combining the advantages of the endovascular and surgical approach was introduced in this study. IGP improves unequivocally the mucosal and serosal blood-flow at the gastric conduit fundus by triggering new vessels formation. The proposed timing and extent of IGP were efficacious and might be easily applied to humans. This novel minimally invasive IGP technique might reduce the anastomotic leak rate of patients undergoing esophagectomy, thus improving their overall oncological outcome.

Abstract

Esophagectomy often presents anastomotic leaks (AL), due to tenuous perfusion of gastric conduit fundus (GCF). Hybrid (endovascular/surgical) ischemic gastric preconditioning (IGP), might improve GCF perfusion. Sixteen pigs undergoing IGP were randomized: (1) Max-IGP (n = 6): embolization of left gastric artery (LGA), right gastric artery (RGA), left gastroepiploic artery (LGEA), and laparoscopic division (LapD) of short gastric arteries (SGA); (2) Min-IGP (n = 5): LGA-embolization, SGA-LapD; (3) Sham (n = 5): angiography, laparoscopy. At day 21 gastric tubulation occurred and GCF perfusion was assessed as: (A) Serosal-tissue-oxygenation (StO₂) by hyperspectral-imaging; (B) Serosal time-to-peak (TTP) by fluorescence-imaging; (C) Mucosal functional-capillary-density-area (FCD-A) index by confocal-laser-endomicroscopy. Local capillary lactates (LCL) were sampled. Neovascularization was assessed (histology/immunohistochemistry). Sham presented lower StO₂ and FCD-A index (41 ± 10.6%; 0.03 ± 0.03 respectively) than min-IGP (66.2 ± 10.2%, p-value = 0.004; 0.22 ± 0.02, p-value < 0.0001 respectively) and max-IGP (63.8 ± 9.4%, p-value = 0.006; 0.2 ± 0.02, p-value < 0.0001 respectively). Sham had higher LCL (9.6 ± 4.8 mL/mol) than min-IGP (4 ± 3.1, p-value = 0.04) and max-IGP (3.4 ± 1.5, p-value = 0.02). For StO₂, FCD-A, LCL, max- and min-IGP did not differ. Sham had higher TTP (24.4 ± 4.9 s) than max-IGP (10 ± 1.5 s, p-value = 0.0008) and min-IGP (14 ± 1.7 s, non-significant). Max- and min-IGP did not differ. Neovascularization was confirmed in both IGP groups. Hybrid IGP improves GCF perfusion, potentially reducing post-esophagectomy AL.

Gastric ischemic preconditioning may reduce the incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage after οesophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy is a severe and life-threatening complication. Gastric ischemic preconditioning is a strategy for the improvement of anastomotic healing. Aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the impact of gastric ischemic preconditioning on postoperative morbidity. A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies comparing patients undergoing gastric ischemic preconditioning before esophagectomy with nonpreconditioned patients. Meta-analysis was conducted for the overall incidence of anastomotic leakage, severe anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, postoperative morbidity, and mortality. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed concerning preconditioning technique, the interval between preconditioning and surgery and the extent of preconditioning. Fifteen cohort studies were identified. Gastric preconditioning was associated with reduced overall incidence of anastomotic leakage (OR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-1.0; P = 0.050) and severe anastomotic leakage (OR 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14-0.50; P < 0.010), but not with anastomotic stricture (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.38 to 3.66; P = 0.780), major postoperative morbidity (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.36; P = 0.940) or mortality (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.39 to 1,23; P = 0.210). Subgroup analyses did not identify any differences between embolization and ligation while increasing the interval between preconditioning and esophagectomy as well as the extent of preconditioning might be beneficial. Gastric ischemic preconditioning may be associated with a reduced incidence of overall and severe anastomotic leakage. Randomized studies are necessary to further evaluate its impact on leakage, refine the technique and define patient populations that will benefit the most.

Critical appraisal of gastric conduit ischaemic conditioning (GIC) prior to oesophagectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Anastomotic leaks remain a major complication following oesophagectomy, accounting for high morbidity and mortality. Recently, gastric ischaemic conditioning (GIC) has been proposed to improve anastomotic integrity through neovascularisation of the gastric conduit. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to determine the impact of GIC on postoperative outcomes following oesophagectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies reporting GIC for any indication of oesophageal resection up to April 25, 2019. The primary outcome was anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes were conduit necrosis, anastomotic strictures, overall and major complications or in-hospital mortality. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects modelling.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies reported on GIC, of which 13 were comparative studies. GIC was performed through ligation in 13 studies and embolisation in six studies. GIC did not appear to reduce anastomotic leakages (OR 0.80, CI_95: 0.51-1.24, p = 0.3), anastomotic strictures (OR 0.75, CI_95: 0.35-1.60, p = 0.5), overall complications (OR 1.02, CI_95: 0.48-2.16, p = 0.9), major complications (OR 1.06, CI_95: 0.53-2.11, p = 0.9), or in-hospital mortality (OR 0.70, CI_95: 0.32-1.53, p = 0.4). However, GIC was associated with reduced rates of conduit necrosis (OR 0.30, CI_95: 0.11-0.77, p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

GIC does not appear to reduce overall rates of anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy but seems to reduce severity of leakages. More in depth studies are recommended.

Staged esophagectomy: surgical legacy or a bailout option?

Staged esophagectomy was developed in the mid-twentieth century in an attempt to reduce high rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Nowadays, the operation has almost been abandoned due to its significant disadvantages, especially the need for multiple surgeries, inability of patients to feed between operations, and morbidity of esophageal stoma. However, staged esophagectomy is still occasionally useful for very high-risk patients and in particular cases, for example multiple cancers of the aerodigestive tract and emergent esophagectomy. Staged esophagectomy is based on the division of surgical stress into two operations, which gives the patient time to recover before final restoration. Gastric tube ischemic preparation may be a more important mechanism in staged esophagectomy. This approach may survive and expand with the application of ischemic gastric pre-conditioning through embolization or laparoscopic ligation of the gastric arteries, which is a less explored and promising technique.