The role of barium esophagography in an endoscopy world

Surgical Nonresponders in Zenker Diverticulum and Lower Esophageal Pathology (POUCH Collaborative)

OBJECTIVE

To identify characteristics of patients who have poor improvement in symptoms following surgical management of Zenker Diverticulum (ZD).

METHODS

Prospective, multicenter cohort study of all individuals enrolled in the Prospective OUtcomes of Cricopharyngeus Hypertonicity (POUCH) Collaborative who underwent surgical repair of ZD between August 2017 and January 2024. Patient demographics, esophagrams, and the 10-item Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) pre- and post-procedure were obtained from a REDCap database. t-tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used to compare the characteristics. Patients with <50% improvement in their EAT-10 scores were deemed surgical nonresponders (SNRs). Those with ≥50% improvement in their EAT-10 scores were deemed surgical responders (SRs).

RESULTS

A total of 184 patients were prospectively followed after undergoing either open or endoscopic surgical management. Twenty-two patients (12%) were deemed SNRs. Preoperative presence of a hiatal hernia was statistically significant characteristic between the SNRs (63.6%) and SRs (32.1%) (p = 0.004). Size of the ZD and history of previous ZD surgery was not a significant characteristic. The length of stay and complication rate were not statistically different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Coexistent esophageal pathology may lead to poor symptomatic improvement following ZD surgery. Preoperative workup of other esophageal disorders is recommended to detect likely SNRs. For SNRs, further esophageal workup may be necessary to evaluate for other esophageal causes related to poor symptomatic improvement following ZD surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3 Laryngoscope, 2024.

Surgical Outcomes in Zenker Diverticula: A Multicenter, Prospective, Longitudinal Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROM) in persons undergoing endoscopic and open surgical management of Zenker diverticula (ZD).

METHODOLOGY

Prospective, multicenter cohort study of all individuals enrolled in the Prospective OUtcomes of Cricopharyngeus Hypertonicity (POUCH) Collaborative who underwent surgery for ZD. Patient survey, radiography reports, and the 10-item Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) pre- and post-procedure were abstracted from a REDCap database, which summarized means, medians, percentages, and frequencies of. Outcome based on operative intervention (endoscopic vs. open) was compared using t-test, Wilcoxon rank sum test or chi-square test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-seven persons were prospectively followed. The mean age (SD) of the cohort was 68.7 (11.0). Overall, 66% of patients reported 100% improvement in EAT-10; 81% of patients had greater than 75% improvement; and 88% had greater than 50% improvement. Endoscopic was used for n = 109 patients, and open surgical intervention was used for n = 38. The median [interquartile range, IQR] EAT-10 percent improvement for endoscopic treatment was 93.3% [72, 100], and open was 100% [92.3, 100] (p = 0.05). The incidence of intraoperative complications was 3.7% for endoscopic and 7.9% for open surgical management. The median [IQR] in follow-up was 86 and 97.5 days, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both endoscopic and open surgical management of ZD provide significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes. The data suggest that open diverticulectomy may provide a modest advantage in symptomatic improvement compared to endoscopic management. The data suggest that the postoperative complication rate is higher in the open surgical group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 134:97-102, 2024.

Factors associated with esophageal motility improvement after bilateral lung transplant in patients with an aperistaltic esophagus

OBJECTIVES

We reported that esophageal peristalsis can improve after lung transplant (LTx), even in patients with pretransplant esophageal aperistalsis. This improvement was associated with better outcomes. We analyzed preoperative factors and sought to predict persistent aperistalsis or motility improvement in patients with pre-LTx esophageal aperistalsis.

METHODS

Patients with esophageal aperistalsis who underwent LTx between January 2013 and December 2016 were included. Preoperative barium esophagrams were blinded and re-examined; subjective scores were assigned to motility and dilation patterns. Postoperative high-resolution manometry was used to divide patients into 2 groups: persistent esophageal aperistalsis (PEA) or improved esophageal peristalsis (IEP).

RESULTS

We identified 29 patients: 20 with restrictive lung disease, 7 with obstructive lung disease, and 2 with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Post-LTx, 10 patients had PEA and 19 had IEP (mean age, 53.3 ± 6.6 years and 61.2 ± 10.6 years, respectively; P = .04). All 9 patients (100%) with obstructive lung disease or pulmonary arterial hypertension but only 10 of 20 patients (50%) with restrictive lung disease had IEP post-LTx (P = .01). All 4 patients with scleroderma had PEA. Nearly absent contractility on preoperative esophagrams was more prevalent in the PEA group than in the IEP group (100% vs 58.8%; P = .06). No further differences were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with esophageal aperistalsis and obstructive lung disease or pulmonary arterial hypertension, but not patients with restrictive lung disease and scleroderma, are likely to have IEP post-LTx. Additional studies may determine whether subjective esophagram assessment can help predict IEP post-LTx in patients with restrictive lung disease without scleroderma.

Preoperative dilated esophagus is associated with a high risk of intrathoracic anastomotic leakage for patients with esophageal cancer

Background

The association between the preoperative condition of the esophagus and anastomotic leakage has seldom been studied. We observed a dominant dilation of the esophagus under barium esophagography in some esophageal cancer patients. In consideration of the larger circular stapler are applied in colorectal surgery, we wonder if larger circular stapler should be applied in these patients to fit the larger esophagus. The larger size of the circular stapler also could decrease the incidence of anastomosis stricture. Thus, we made this study to explore if patients with a dilated esophagus were facing a higher risk of anastomotic leakage when applying the 25 mm circular stapler.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing gastroesophageal intrathoracic anastomosis using a 25 mm circular stapler was performed. Patients with endoscopy or barium esophagography confirmed anastomotic leakage was assigned to leakage group (LG) while the left was enrolled in no leakage group (NLG). The measurement of the diameter of the esophagus was carried out at the level of 5 centimeters away from the upper margin of the tumor on esophagography.

Results

LG had a greater intraluminal mucosal phase diameter (IMPD) than NLG (P=0.010). The ROC curve indicated 1.79 cm as the cutoff value for IMPD. Patients with IMPD greater than 1.79 cm had a statistically significant higher rate of leakage. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, dilated IMPD was proven to be a risk factor of 25 mm-circular-stapler anastomotic leakage.

Conclusions

Patients with an IMPD over 1.79 mm are facing a higher risk of intrathoracic anastomosis leakage when applying the 25 mm circular stapler. Larger circular stapler or hand-sewn would be the better choice for these patients.

Utility of Esophagram versus High-Resolution Manometry in the Detection of Esophageal Dysmotility

OBJECTIVE

This study compared barium esophagram with high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) results to determine whether esophagram is an adequate screening examination for esophageal motility disorders, a common cause of dysphagia.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series with chart review.

SETTING

Tertiary academic medical center.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was completed of 281 patients who underwent both HRM and esophagram from March 2012 to June 2014. Inclusion criteria included a specific assessment of the presence or absence of dysmotility on both examinations.

RESULTS

Eighty-four males and 197 females were included in the study. Average age was 57 years (range, 16-84). Average time between studies was 19 days (range, 0-90). Motility was judged to be normal in 40.2% (113 of 281) of esophagrams and 46.6% (131 of 281) of HRM studies. However, disagreement between the study findings was significant (P = .04). The sensitivity of esophagram for detecting esophageal dysmotility was 0.69, and specificity was 0.50. The positive and negative predictive values of esophagram for dysmotility were 0.61 and 0.58, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophagram is useful in the assessment of anatomic abnormalities but is a poor screening examination for the detection of esophageal dysmotility. Patients with suspected esophageal dysphagia should be referred for HRM to evaluate motility disorders and identify potential treatment targets, regardless of esophagram results.