Technical challenges of total esophageal reconstruction using a supercharged jejunal flap. Ann Surg. 2011;253:1122-1129. [PMID: 21587114 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e318217e875]

Outcomes of Standardized Protocols in Supercharged Pedicled Jejunal Esophageal Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of long-segment supercharged pedicled jejunal (SPJ) interposition after implementation of a dedicated multidisciplinary pathway and technical refinements.

METHODS

This study was a 6-year review of consecutive patients who underwent complex esophageal reconstruction with SPJ interposition. Clinical data were abstracted, and PRO data were collected prospectively by using the Upper Digestive Disease mobile application (UDD App). This standardized questionnaire comprised domains for mental and physical health, pain, dysphagia, reflux, hypoglycemia dumping, and gastrointestinal dumping symptoms. Operative refinements were comprehensively established by 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients were included in the study, 15 of whom had a history of esophageal malignant disease and neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Most patients (18; 95%) underwent delayed reconstruction after diversion. There was no 90-day mortality or flap loss. Most patients (18; 95%) achieved an enteral diet. Seven patients (37%) experienced early complications (<90 days) requiring procedural intervention. The incidence of any medical or surgical complication was similar in the earlier (2015-2017) and late (2018-2020) cohorts, but aspiration events, surgical site infections, anastomotic leak rates, and median hospital stay (reduced from 15 days [IQR, 10-21 days] to 9 days [IQR, 9-13 days]) improved in the contemporary cohort. PRO data were collected in 14 of 15 (93%) living patients. Severe symptoms in at least 1 domain were reported by most patients (11; 79%) and improved over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Dedicated care pathways allow standardization of complex procedures, and targeted modifications may optimize recovery and patient outcomes. This cohort of patients may report severe symptoms that require ongoing monitoring and intervention.

Supercharged Jejunal Interposition

Complex esophageal reconstruction represents a high risk and challenging procedure. A dedicated pathway with multispecialty teams can facilitate a systematic checklist approach to perioperative management and evaluation of long-term outcomes. Refinements in the operative technique for supercharged pedicled jejunum (SPJ) for long segment interposition in esophageal reconstruction are reviewed in this article. Medical and surgical complications among this complex niche group of patients are significant and require care in specialist centers with a focused team. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in long-segment SPJ interposition are recognized to provide additional monitoring of surgical outcomes and may help guide interventions for subsequent symptom control.

A Comparison of Different Types of Esophageal Reconstructions: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: A total esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction is the mainstream procedure for esophageal cancer. Colon interposition and free jejunal flap for esophageal reconstruction are the alternative choices when the gastric tube is not available. However, to date, a solution for the high anastomosis leakage rates among these three types of conduits has not been reported. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to investigate the rate of anastomotic leakage (AL) among the three procedures to determine the best esophageal substitute or the future direction for improving the conventional gastric pull-up (GPU). Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. We included esophageal cancer patients receiving esophagectomy and excluded patients with other cancer. The random effect model was used in this network meta-analysis. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for the quality assessment of studies in the network meta-analysis, and funnel plots were used to evaluate publication bias. The primary outcome is anastomosis leakage; the secondary outcomes are stricture formation, length of hospital stays, and mortality rate. Results: Nine studies involving 1613 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. The trend results indicated the following. Regarding anastomosis leakage, free jejunal flap was the better procedure; regarding stricture formation, colon interposition was the better procedure; regarding mortality rate, free jejunal flap was the better procedure; regarding length of hospital stay, gastric pull-up was the better treatment. Discussion: Overall, if technically accessible, free jejunal flap is a better choice than colon interposition when gastric conduit cannot be used, but further study should be conducted to compare groups with equal supercharged patients. In addition, jejunal flap (JF) cannot replace traditional gastric pull-up (GPU) due to technical complexities, more anastomotic sites, and longer operation times. However, the GPU method with the supercharged procedure would be a possible solution to lower postoperative AL. The limitation of this meta-analysis is that the number of articles included was low; we aim to update the result when new data are available. Funding: None. Registration: N/A.

Use of free jejunal flap as a salvage procedure in the management of high corrosive esophageal re-strictures: an institutional experience and review of literature

BACKGROUND

High pharyngo-esophageal strictures following corrosive ingestion continue to pose a challenge to the surgeon, particularly in the developing world. With the advancements and increased experience with microsurgical techniques, free jejunal flaps offer a viable reconstruction option in patients with high corrosive strictures with previous failed reconstruction. We review our experience with free jejunal flap in three cases with high pharyngo-esophageal stricture following corrosive ingestion, with previous failed reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of three patients underwent salvage free jejunal flap after failed reconstruction for high pharyngo-esophageal strictures following corrosive acid ingestion. All the three patients developed anastomotic leak and subsequent stricture, two following a pharyngo-gastric anastomosis and one following a pharyngo-colic anastomosis. The strictured segment was bridged using a free jejunal graft with microvascular anastomosis to the lingual artery and common facial vein. All patients were followed-up at regular intervals.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The strictured pharyngeal anastomotic segment was successfully reconstructed with free jejunal flap in all the three patients. Patients were able to take food orally and maintain nutrition without the need of jejunostomy feeding. On long-term follow-up (median: 5 years), there was no recurrence of dysphagia and all the patients had good health-related quality of life.

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.

Utility of the evaluation of blood flow of remnant esophagus with indocyanine green in esophagectomy with jejunum reconstruction: Case series

BACKGROUND

Pedicled jejunal flap can be utilized with various tips for esophageal reconstruction in patients with a history of gastrectomy or those who have undergone synchronous esophagogastrectomy. However, the rate of anastomosis leakage is high; therefore, we considered the evaluation of blood flow of the remnant esophagus with indocyanine green in setting the anastomosis site.

METHODS

Fifty patients who underwent radical esophagectomy with pedicled jejunal flap between January 2011 and June 2020 were identified. From June 2019, blood flow in the pedicled jejunum and remnant esophagus were evaluated to set the anastomosis site of the latter. Usually, the second and third jejunal vessels are transected, and if the jejunal flap cannot reach to the anastomosis point, we actively transect the marginal vessels to stretch the jejunal flap. Microvascular anastomosis between the jejunal branches and the internal thoracic vessels is usually made, and the anastomosis site is set at the well-stained part of the esophagus.

RESULTS

Overall, 39 patients underwent the procedure before June 2019 (Group A), and 11 patients underwent the procedure since June 2019 (Group B). No significant difference was found in the patients' background, type of preoperative therapy, presence or absence of ligation of marginal vessels and two-stage operation between the groups. Group A had 16 cases of anastomosis leakage; B had only 1 case (p < 0.05). There were no cases of pedicled jejunum graft necrosis.

CONCLUSION

Assessing remnant esophageal perfusion by indocyanine green imaging in pedicled jejunum reconstruction resulted in a lower anastomotic leak rate.

The Benefits of the Supercharged Ileocolic Flap in Patients Who Underwent Total Esophagectomy and Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

 Patients who undergo total esophagectomy and gastrectomy present a challenging scenario for reconstructive surgeons. Several techniques have been described. However, the best choice is still a matter of debate. We aim to report our experience with the supercharged ileocolic flap, then to compare the long-term functional outcomes in cancer and caustic injury patients. We investigate the safest route of transposition and demonstrate the importance of supercharging the flap. Last, we perform a literature review to compare our results with the ones reported in the literature.

METHODS

 A total of 36 patients underwent the supercharged ileocolic flap procedure. The details reviewed included the type of defect, flap characteristic, route of transposition, complications, patient survival, and swallowing evaluation. Survival and long-term function preservation were considered as the main outcomes. A secondary end-point was the identification of the safest route of transposition. We extracted the pertinent literature on supercharged bowel flaps from 1995 to July 2020 RESULTS:  All flaps survived; only two flaps were partially lost. Thirty-three percent of the cohort experienced postoperative complications; the most common was leakage of the cervical anastomosis (17%), followed by neck wound infection (8%). The 5-year dysphagia-free survival rate was 87% in corrosive injury patients and 78% in cancer patients. The mean time to be free from dysphagia after surgery was 25.12 ± 4.55 months for corrosive patients and 39.56 ± 9.45 months for cancer patients (p = 0.118). The safest route of transposition was retrosternal extra-mediastinal. From the literature review, the data from 11 studies were extracted.

CONCLUSION

 The supercharged ileocolic flap is a robust option for total esophageal replacement when the stomach is not available and the retrosternal route is the safest for transposition. The functional outcomes are excellent, with acceptable morbidity and a good life expectancy, either in cancer and noncancer patients. Supercharging the flap is recommended.

Lymph Node Metastasis and Recurrences from Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Patients with Previous Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Esophageal cancer patients sometimes have a history of previous gastrectomy. To determine whether we should resect or preserve the remnant stomach, we need to understand the frequency and sites of abdominal lymph node (LN) metastasis from esophageal cancer after gastrectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In 46 patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who had a history of previous gastrectomy due to gastric cancer (n = 20) or benign disease (n = 26), the frequency and sites of any LN metastasis including LN metastasis at surgery and LN recurrence were investigated. The factors associated with abdominal LN metastasis were also examined.

RESULTS

The incidence of metastasis to cervical, mediastinal, and abdominal LNs at surgery was 10.8%, 30.4%, and 30.4%, respectively. The incidence of abdominal LN recurrence was 6.5%. Of 46 patients, 16 patients (34.8%) had any abdominal LN metastasis, including abdominal LN metastasis at surgery or abdominal LN recurrence. There was no significant difference in the incidence of any abdominal LN metastasis between the gastric cancer group and the benign disease group (25.0% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.222). Clinically, nodal status was identified as the only independent factor associated with the occurrence of any abdominal LN metastasis, although neither tumor location nor the reason for gastrectomy was.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that the incidence of abdominal LN metastasis from ESCC after gastrectomy was not necessarily low, regardless of the tumor location and the reason for previous gastrectomy. This result suggests that gastrectomy should not be omitted easily in ESCC patients after previous gastrectomy.

Two-stage Reconstruction Using a Free Jejunum/Ileum Flap After Total Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction after esophagectomy is conventionally performed with a gastric conduit. However, in cases where a gastric conduit is unavailable, reconstructive procedures vary in terms of flap type, operative timing, and conduit route. Single-stage surgery is associated with a long operation time and high surgical stress, resulting in perioperative mortality. Recent advances in reconstructive microsurgery have made free intestinal flap transfer safe and reliable. Therefore, to overcome the shortcomings with previous methods, we performed 2-stage surgery involving free jejunum/ileum transfer for reconstruction after esophagectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2010 to 2018, 42 free jejunum/ileum flaps were transferred for reconstruction after esophagectomy in 41 patients. The diagnosis was esophageal cancer in 38 patients. All operations were performed in 2 stages. In most cases, total esophagectomy was performed in the first operation. The cervical stump of the esophagus was sutured to the cervical skin, creating an esophagostomy in the left neck. About 4 to 7 weeks after the first operation, the second operation was performed. The free jejunum/ileum flap was transferred through the subcutaneous route. Microvascular anastomosis was performed with the internal mammary artery and internal mammary vein, transverse cervical artery, internal and external jugular veins (internal jugular vein and EJV, respectively), and cephalic vein. The mean follow-up duration was 20 months.

RESULTS

Free jejunum/ileum transfer was performed as the first operation in 4 cases and as the second operation in 38 cases. A free jejunal flap was used in 36 cases and free ileal flap was used in 6 cases. The recipient arteries were the internal mammary artery in 38 cases and transverse cervical artery in 4 cases. The recipient veins were the internal mammary vein in 15 cases, cephalic vein in 13 cases, EJV in 10 cases, and internal jugular vein in 10 cases. The flaps survived in all cases, except 1 case (41/42, 97.6%). The complications were anastomotic leakage of the flap in 9 cases, respiratory complications in 10 cases, and ileus in 2 cases. Perioperative mortality was not noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-stage surgery using free jejunum/ileum flap transfer is a safe and reliable option for esophageal reconstruction in cases where gastric pull-up is unavailable.

Esophageal reconstruction after oncological total laryngopharyngoesophagectomy: Algorithmic approach

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction for total laryngopharyngoesophagectomy is accomplished mainly by gastrointestinal transposition but can be complicated by anastomotic tension or associated neck-skin defect. Here, we present the results of total esophageal reconstruction by gastrointestinal transposition alone or with additional free tissue transfer and propose an algorithm accordingly.

METHODS

We reviewed patients who had oncologic total laryngopharyngoesophagectomy between January 2012 and January 2016. Twenty-four men and one woman were included with a mean age of 54 (range, 41-72) years. Patients were grouped by reconstruction into the gastric pull-up (GP, n = 15), colon interposition (CI, n = 2), GP combined with free jejunal flap (GPFJ, n = 6), or GP combined with anterolateral thigh flap (GPALT, n = 2) group to compare clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean operation time was 1037.3 minutes and was significantly longer in the GPALT group than in the GP group (1235.0 ± 50.0 minutes vs. 929.7 ± 137.7 minutes, p =.009). All flaps survived. After a mean follow-up of 18 months, the overall leakage, stricture, and successful swallowing rates were 44%, 4%, and 76%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the leakage (53.3%, 50.0%, 16.7%, and 50.0%, p =.581), stricture (6.7%, 0%, 0%, and 0%, p = 1.000), or successful swallowing (73.3%, 50.0%, 83.3%, and 100%, p =.783) rates between GP, CI, GPFJ, and GPALT groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed algorithm that ranks gastric pull-up as a priority and uses additional free tissue transfer to overcome the anastomotic tension or associated neck-skin defect is feasible.

Alternative conduits for esophageal replacement

Replacement of the native esophagus after esophagectomy is a problem that has challenged surgeons for over a century. Not only must the conduit be long enough to bridge the distance between the cervical esophagus and the abdomen, it must also have a reliable vascular supply and be sufficiently functional to allow for deglutition. The stomach, jejunum, and colon (right, left or transverse) have all been proposed as potential solutions. The stomach has gained favor for its length, reliable vascular supply and need for only a single anastomosis. However, there are times when the stomach is unavailable for use as a conduit. It is in these instances that an esophageal surgeon must have an alternative conduit in their armamentarium. In this paper, we will briefly discuss the technical aspects of jejunal and colonic interposition. We will review the recent literature with a focus on early and late outcomes. The advantages and disadvantages of both options will be reviewed.

Reconstruction after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer patients with a history of gastrectomy

Pedicled jejunal flap and colon graft interposition are choices for esophageal reconstruction in patients with a history of gastrectomy or those who have undergone synchronous esophagogastrectomy. However, the optimal conduit in this situation is still being debated. We reviewed the literature concerning esophageal reconstruction using a conduit other than the stomach. Approximately 10 % of esophagectomized patients undergo esophageal reconstruction using pedicled jejunum or colon interposition in Japan. The jejunal graft and colon graft are selected evenly, although the percentage of jejunal graft use is gradually increasing. Microvascular supercharge was performed in most of the reports of pedicled jejunal graft reconstruction, whereas vascular enhancement was not popularly used in the reports of colon graft interposition. Although the incidences of graft loss and anastomotic leakage were comparable between grafts, mortality rates seem to be higher in patients who undergo colon graft reconstruction than in those who undergo reconstruction with a jejunal graft. Prospective comparisons of short-term outcomes as well as long-term quality of life are needed to identify the best method of reconstruction.

Ileo-right hemi-colonic cervical pull-up on a non-supercharged ileocolic arterial pedicle: A technical and case report

Esophageal reconstruction can be challenging when stomach and colon are not anatomically intact and their use as esophageal substitutes is therefore limited. Innovative individual approaches are then necessary to restore the intestinal passage. We describe a technique in which a short stump of the right hemicolon and 25 cm of ileum on a long, non-supercharged, fully mobilized ileocolic arterial pedicle were used for esophageal reconstruction to the neck. In this case, a 65 year-old male patient had accidentally indigested hydrochloric acid which caused necrosis of his upper digestive tract. An emergency esophagectomy, gastrectomy, duodenectomy, pancreatectomy and splenectomy had been performed in an outside hospital. A cervical esophagostomy and a biliodigestive anastomosis had been created and a jejunal catheter for enteral feeding had been placed. After the patient had recovered, a reconstruction of his food passage via the left and transverse colon failed for technical reasons due to an intraoperative necrotic demarcation of the colon. Our team then faced the situation that only a short stump of the right hemi-colon was left in situ when the patient was referred to our center. After intensified nutritional therapy, we reconstructed this patient’s food passage with the right hemicolon-approach described herein. After treatment of a postoperative pneumonia, the patient was discharged from hospital on the 26^th postoperative day in a good clinical condition on an oral-only diet. In conclusion, individual approaches for long-segment reconstruction of the esophagus can be technically feasible in experienced hands. They do not always require arterial supercharging or free intestinal transplantation.

Microsurgical reconstruction of combined tracheal and total esophageal defects

OBJECTIVE

Lesions involving both the trachea and the esophagus are often considered inoperable because of the lack of reliable reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to review our experience of combined supercharged jejunal and other flaps for tracheal and esophageal reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 5 consecutive cases with combined tracheal and total esophageal defects was performed. The esophageal defect was reconstructed with a supercharged jejunal flap, and the trachea was reconstructed with a free anterolateral thigh flap or a pedicled muscle flap.

RESULTS

Primary diagnosis included tracheostoma recurrence after a total laryngectomy for laryngeal cancer in 2 patients and tracheoesophageal fistula due to esophageal stenting for complications from prior treatment for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, parathyroid cancer, and esophageal cancer in 3 patients, respectively. Tracheal and esophageal reconstructions were staged in 4 patients, and 1 patient received simultaneous reconstruction. Tracheal necrosis developed in 1 patient with a mediastinal tracheostoma, and the patient eventually died of infection 2 months later. The other 4 patients recovered well and resumed an oral diet.

CONCLUSIONS

Complex and often life-threatening lesions involving both the trachea and the esophagus are not necessarily inoperable. With careful planning, these combined defects can be safely reconstructed with multiple flaps with good functional outcomes and reasonable survival.

Regenerative medicine for oesophageal reconstruction after cancer treatment

Removal of malignant tissue in patients with oesophageal cancer and replacement with autologous grafts from the stomach and colon can lead to problems. The need to reduce stenosis and anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy is a high priority. Developments in tissue-engineering methods and cell-sheet technology have improved scaffold materials for oesophageal repair. Despite the many successful animal studies, few tissue-engineering approaches have progressed to clinical trials. In this Review, we discuss the status of oesophagus reconstruction after surgery. In particular, we highlight two clinical trials that used decellularised constructs and epithelial cell sheets to replace excised tissues after endoscopic submucosal dissection or mucosal resection procedures. Results from the trials showed that both decellularised grafts and epithelial-cell sheets prevented stenosis. By contrast, animal studies have shown that the use of tissue-engineered constructs after oesophagectomy remains a challenge.

Jejunal graft conduits after esophagectomy

INTRODUCTION

The jejunum is uniquely suitable for esophageal reconstruction because it is relatively abundant, does not require a formal preparation, is typically free of disease, has similar luminal size compared to the esophagus, has intrinsic peristalsis, and may not undergo senescent lengthening to the extent that colon does.

METHODS

To obtain data to determine the outcomes of jejunal interposition for esophageal replacement, electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Scopus, EMBASE (Ovid SP), Science Direct's full-text database, and the Cochrane Library from January 1990 to September 2013.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and forty-six abstracts were reviewed and an article search was performed on selected abstracts. Additional references from article bibliographies were included as appropriate. A thorough search of the literature demonstrates the widespread use of jejunum, either as a free, pedicled, or free- and pedicled-graft with acceptable results.

CONCLUSIONS

Any region of the esophagus can be replaced by jejunum, whether it is distal esophagus as a Merendino procedure for a vagal-sparing esophagectomy and segmental jejunal reconstruction connected to stomach, mid-thoracic esophagus as a pedicled jejunal interposition or free flap, cervical esophagus as a free segmental interposition, or the entire length as a long-segment super-charged pedicled jejunal interposition. When used, the jejunum is either pedicled, augmented ("super-charged"), a free segment (requiring microvascular anastomosis of artery and vein), or a combination of the above.

Two-stage operation for thoracic esophageal cancer: esophagectomy and subsequent reconstruction by a free jejunal flap

When the stomach is unavailable for esophageal reconstruction due to previous gastrectomy or synchronous gastric cancer, a pedicled jejunum or colon, with or without vascular supercharge, has been the alternative. However, these reconstructions are not free from severe complications, such as necrosis. We have introduced a new surgical technique for delayed esophageal reconstruction using a free jejunal flap. We used this technique in 11 patients. Four weeks after subtotal esophagectomy, reconstruction using free jejunal flaps was performed. A free jejunum was placed at the pre-sternum, and the internal thoracic artery and vein were usually used as the recipient vessels. There were no cases of flap necrosis and no hospital deaths. Anastomotic leakage occurred in two cases. Both leakages were cured by conservative treatment. Delayed esophageal reconstruction using a free jejunal flap can be considered to be a safe procedure when the stomach is unavailable as an esophageal substitute.

My first 100 consecutive microvascular free flaps: pearls and lessons learned in first year of practice

Background:

Microvascular reconstruction for oncologic defects is a challenging and rewarding endeavor, and successful outcomes are dependent on a multitude of factors. This study represents lessons learned from a personal prospective experience with 100 consecutive free flaps.

Methods:

All patients’ medical records were reviewed for demographics, operative notes, and complications.

Results:

Overall 100 flaps were performed in 84 consecutive patients for reconstruction of breast, head and neck, trunk, and extremity defects. Nineteen patients underwent free flap breast reconstruction with 10 patients undergoing bilateral reconstruction and 2 patients receiving a bipedicle flap for reconstruction of a unilateral breast defect. Sixty-five free flaps were performed in 61 patients with 3 patients receiving 2 free flaps for reconstruction of extensive head and neck defects and 1 patient who required a second flap for partial flap loss. Trunk and extremity reconstruction was less common with 2 free flaps performed in each group. Overall, 19 patients (22.6%) developed complications and 14 required a return to the operating room. There were no flap losses in this cohort. Thorough preoperative evaluation and workup, meticulous surgical technique and intraoperative planning, and diligent postoperative monitoring and prompt intervention are critical for flap success.

Conclusions:

As a young plastic surgeon embarking in reconstructive plastic surgery at an academic institution, the challenges and dilemmas presented in the first year of practice have been daunting but also represent opportunities for learning and improvement. Skills and knowledge acquired from time, experience, and mentors are invaluable in optimizing outcomes in microvascular free flap reconstruction.

Antethoracic pedicled jejunum reconstruction with the supercharge technique for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric tube is the first choice as an esophageal substitute for reconstruction after esophagectomy. Colon or jejunum is selected for patients in whom stomach cannot be used. Colon interposition is reported to have a high incidence of anastomotic leakage and mortality. For safer surgical treatment, the authors adopted supercharged pedicle jejunum reconstruction as the operation of choice in patients with esophageal cancer who had no stomach to use as an esophageal substitute. The aim of this study was to review our experience with this technique.

METHODS

From 2003 to 2009, esophagectomy and antethoracic pedicled jejunum reconstruction with the supercharge technique was performed in 27 patients with esophageal cancer at the Department of Gastroenterological Surgery (Surgery II), Nagoya University Hospital. Medical records of these 27 patients were retrospectively reviewed to determine demographic data, diagnosis, functional results, and perioperative course.

RESULTS

Median operating time, blood loss, hospital stay, and duration of enteral feeding were 636 min (range 454-856 min), 580 ml (range 208-1959 ml), 27 days (range 16-72 days), and 80 days (range 26-1740 days), respectively. There were no in-hospital deaths. Anastomotic leakage occurred in two patients and was successfully managed conservatively. In 2 of 27 patients, the pedicled jejunum was of insufficient length, and additional procedures were needed to complete the anastomosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although antethoracic pedicled jejunum reconstruction with the supercharge technique is technically demanding, it is a reliable technique and contributes to successful reconstruction after esophagectomy for patients in whom stomach is not available for reconstruction.

Similar outcomes after primary and secondary esophagocoloplasty for caustic injuries

BACKGROUND

The main purpose of the study was to report a comparative experience with primary and secondary esophagocoloplasty for caustic injuries. Secondary esophagocoloplasty is the main rescue option after graft loss, but data in the literature are scarce.

METHODS

The operative characteristics, postoperative course, and functional outcomes of 21 secondary and of 246 primary esophagocoloplasty operations performed for caustic injuries between 1987 and 2006 were compared. Intraoperative events requiring significant changes in the planned operative strategy, such as graft ischemia or necrosis, were recorded. Statistical tests were performed in both cohorts to identify factors predictive of postoperative graft necrosis. Univariate analysis was performed to identify factors predictive of functional failure after secondary esophagocoloplasty.

RESULTS

Operative mortality (5% vs 4%, p=0.56), morbidity (62% vs 59%, p=0.96), postoperative graft necrosis (14% vs 7%, p=0.16), and functional success (68% vs 70%, p=0.79) rates of the secondary and primary esophagocoloplasty operations were similar. Intraoperative graft ischemia at the time of secondary esophagocoloplasty was significantly associated with the risk of postoperative graft necrosis (p=0.015) and functional failure (p=0.046). At the time of primary esophagocoloplasty, intraoperative necrosis of the colon was the only independent predictive factor of postoperative graft necrosis (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary esophagocoloplasty is a safe and reliable salvage option after primary graft loss in patients with caustic injuries. Delayed esophagocoloplasty should be considered if intraoperative colon necrosis occurs at the time of primary reconstruction.