A national audit of colonic interposition for esophageal replacement

Surgical options in retrosternal oesophageal reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Retrosternal oesophageal reconstructions with collar anastomoses can become necessary when the stomach is either unavailable for oesophageal replacement, or orthotopic reconstruction is deemed impractical. Our aim was to analyse our results regarding technical approaches and outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients undergoing primary and secondary oesophageal retrosternal reconstructions with collar anastomoses at our centre (2019-2023) were retrospectively analysed and individual surgical reconstruction options were presented.

RESULTS

Overall, twelve patients received primary (n = 5; 42.7%) or secondary (n = 7; 58.3%) reconstructions; ten with colonic interposition and two with gastric pull-up. Male/female ratio was 4:8; median age 66 years (30-87). Charlson-Comorbidity-Score (CCS) was 5 (1-7); 8/12 patients (67%) had ASA-classification score ≥ 3. We observed no conduit necrosis, but one patient (8.3%) with a leakage of the oesophago-colonostomy which was successfully treated by endoscopic vacuum therapy. Four patients (33.3%) acquired nosocomial pneumonia. Additional drainages for pleural fluid collections were necessary in three patients (25%). Overall comprehensive-complication-index (CCI) was 26.2 (0-44.9). Length-of-stay (LOS) was 22 days median (15-40). There was no 90-days mortality. Overall, CCI during the follow-up (FU) period at median 26 months (16-50) was 33.7 (0-100). 10 out of 12 patients were on sufficient oral nutrition at 12 months FU.

CONCLUSION

Primary and secondary oesophageal retrosternal reconstructions encompass diverse entities and typically requires tailored decision-making. These procedures, though rare, are feasible with acceptable complication rates and positive functional outcomes when performed in experienced hands.

Oesophagopleural fistula after pneumonectomy: A systematic review and case series

INTRODUCTION

There is a paucity of data on the optimal management of oesophagopleural fistula (OPF) following pneumonectomy. The current published literature is limited to case reports and small case series. Although rare, OPF can have a significant impact on both the morbidity and mortality of patients.

METHODS

Two cases of OPF managed at our institution were reported. A systematic review was then conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance concerning OPF following pneumonectomy. Demographic, operative and management data were analysed.

FINDINGS

Systematic review-identified data pertaining to 59 patients from 31 papers was collated. Median patient age was 59.5 years with pneumonectomy performed typically for malignancy (68%) or tuberculosis (19%). Median time from pneumonectomy to a diagnosis of OPF was 12.5 months. Twenty-five per cent of the patients had a synchronous bronchopleural fistula. Management of OPF in this setting is heterogenous. Conservative management was often reserved for asymptomatic or unfit patients. The remainder underwent endoscopic or surgical correction of the fistulae or a combination of the two with varying outcomes. Median follow-up was 18 months. All-cause mortality was 31% (18/59) with a median duration from pneumonectomy to death of 35 days (range 1-1,095).

CONCLUSIONS

Major heterogeneity of management for this rare complication hinders the introduction of standardised guidance of post-pneumonectomy OPF. Surgical and endoscopic intervention is feasible and can be successful in specialist centres. Adopting an multidisciplinary team approach involving both oesophagogastric and thoracic surgery teams and the introduction of a registry database of postoperative complications are likely to yield optimal outcomes.

Colonic interposition in esophagectomy: an ACS-NSQIP study

INTRODUCTION

For patients with cancer or injury of the esophagus, esophagectomy with reconstruction using the stomach (gastric pull-up, GPU) or colon (colonic interposition, CI) can restore function but is associated with high morbidity. We sought to describe the differences in outcomes between the two replacement organs using a national database.

METHODS

From ACS-NSQIP, patients who underwent GPU or CI between 2006 and 2020 were identified. Univariate analyses were performed on length of stay, complications, reoperation, readmission, and mortality. Variables with P ≤ 0.2 were included in the multivariate regression. Primary outcomes were 30-day reoperation, readmission, and mortality. Data were assessed using Chi-squared tests and logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 12,545 GPU and 502 CI patients. GPU patients were older with higher BMI, and more likely to be male (80.3% versus 70.3%, P < 0.0001) and white (77.8% versus 69.1%, P < 0.0001). More GPU patients had independent functional status and underlying bleeding disorders, but fewer other preoperative comorbidities than CI patients. On univariate analysis, CI patients had longer hospital stays (13 versus 10 days, P < 0.0001); more reoperations (23.9% versus 14.5%, P < 0.0001); a lower rate of discharge to home (70.9% versus 82.1%, P < 0.0001); and a higher mortality rate (6.2% versus 2.9%, P < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, CI was associated with increased risk of reoperation but not with readmission or mortality. Reoperation was associated with CI, smoking, chronic wound, hypertension, higher ASA class, contaminated or dirty wound class, and longer operative time. Readmission was associated with female gender, hypertension, and longer operative time. Mortality was associated with age, metastatic cancer, preoperative sepsis, preoperative renal failure, malignant esophageal disease, higher ASA class, incomplete closure, and longer operative time.

CONCLUSION

Colonic interposition, although a more difficult option with traditionally worse outcomes, should still be considered for patients requiring esophagectomy if the stomach cannot be used to restore continuity, as differences in outcomes appear to be due to underlying frailty of patients rather than the procedure.

Successful management of therapy-refractory pseudoachalasia after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy by bypassing colonic pull-up: A case report

BACKGROUND

Gastric pull-up after esophagectomy is still a demanding surgical procedure and associated with considerable morbidity such as anastomotic leaks, fistulas or stenoses. These complications are usually managed by endoscopy, but in extreme cases multidisciplinary management including reoperations may be necessary. Here, we report managing therapy-refractory pseudoachalasia after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy by bypassing colonic pull-up.

CASE SUMMARY

A 70-year-old male with dysphagia and regurgitation after esophagectomy with gastric pull-up reconstruction was transferred to our tertiary hospital. Since endoscopic approaches including balloon dilatation and stenting failed, retrosternal colonic pull-up with Roux-en-Y reconstruction was performed with no subsequent adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Secondary colonic pull-up is a demanding but successful surgical procedure in patients suffering from therapy-refractory complaints after esophagectomy with gastric pull-up reconstruction.

Colonic interposition, a contemporary experience: technical aspects and outcomes

Colonic interposition is rarely used as an oesophageal replacement after resection, as the preferred use of stomach involves less anastomoses and lower risks of major complications. The functional outcome from the colonic conduit is also unpredictable. This report documents the spectrum of experience of a high-volume oesophageal centre, highlighting indications, techniques and functional outcomes. A retrospective review was undertaken of a prospective database from 2012 to 2016. Four of 252 (1.5%) cases in this time period utilised colon interposition. Two cases were for gastric conduit necrosis following oesophageal cancer resections, one for caustic ingestion with both an oesophago-bronchial fistula and gastric injury, and one for a primary oesophageal malignancy in a patient whom previously had a total gastrectomy. All patients had either a retrosternal or posterior mediastinal isoperistaltic right colon conduit placed. Two of three cancer patients are alive and disease free at 3 and 5 years, respectively. Surviving patients are weight stable and tolerating a normal diet. Both report excellent quality of life using validated assessment tools. Colonic interposition is rarely required in modern oesophageal practice, but with this technique good long-term nutritional and functional outcomes can be obtained. It is required in the armamentarium of a specialist centre, and training given its rarity may require novel approaches such as simulation and cadaveric-based training.

Quality of life of patients with a colonic interposition postoesophagectomy

OBJECTIVES

After oesophagectomy, stomach grafts are most frequently used to restore intestinal continuity. Less frequently, a colonic graft is used. There is quite a large body of literature addressing the functional outcome after gastric pull-up, but little is known about the functional results of colonic interposition (CI). The aim of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes and the long-term quality of life and function of the CI postoesophagectomy.

METHODS

Between 2002 and 2016, we retrospectively collected data on 80 patients with CI from personal health records at the Ghent University hospital. We prospectively compared the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-OG25 and Swallowing Quality of Life (SWAL-QOL) questionnaire scores to the healthy reference group and the gastric tube (GT) group.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality rate was 5%. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 37.5% and stenosis in 20% of the patients. The median overall survival of all patients was 33.9 months (95% confidence interval 8.3-59.4). The mean general health score of the CI patients was less than the healthy reference group but comparable to the GT group (CI = 62.1 vs healthy reference group = 71.2 vs GT = 60). Fifty percent of the patients reported their health as good and 15% as very good. The mean functional results with a CI were better than with a GT. Compared to GT patients, CI patients had less dyspnoea, reflux and dysphagia, but they reported more food selection, diarrhoea and weight loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the high complication rate, the severity of the disease and the demanding operation, patients perceived themselves as being in good health and reported very good long-term functionality after CI.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

B670201630635.

Conduit necrosis following esophagectomy: An up-to-date literature review

Esophageal conduit ischaemia and necrosis is an uncommon but devastating complication of esophagectomy and remains one of the most challenging issues in surgical practice. The incidence, time interval to develop symptoms, and clinical presentation are highly variable with no predictable pattern. Evidence comes from case reports and case series rather than randomized controlled trials. We describe the issues surrounding conduit necrosis affecting the stomach, jejunum and colon as an esophageal replacement and the advantages, disadvantages and challenges of each type of reconstruction. Diagnosis is challenging for the most experienced surgeon. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and computed tomography thorax with both oral and intravenous contrast is the gold standard. Management, either conservative or interventional is also a difficult decision. Management options include conservative treatment and more aggressive treatments such as stent insertion, surgical debridement and repair of the esophagus using jejunum, colon or a musculocutaneous flap. In spite of recent advances in surgical techniques, there is no reliable strategy to manage esophageal conduit necrosis. Our review covers the pathophysiology and clinical significance of esophageal necrosis while highlighting current techniques of prevention, diagnosis and treatment of this life-threatening condition.