Esophageal replacement by colon interposition with microvascular surgery for patients with thoracic esophageal cancer: the utility of superdrainage

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.

Salvage reconstruction of the esophagus using the left colon with microscopic supercharge following failed ileocolic reconstruction: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Ileocolic interposition is often used for the reconstruction of patients with esophageal cancer with a history of gastrectomy. However, graft failure due to conduit necrosis has been reported in 0-5 % of patients. Salvage reconstruction surgery for this situation is considered challenging, and only a few cases of successful salvage operations following failure of ileocolic interposition have been reported.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 70s year-old male patient with a history of distal and total gastrectomy underwent subtotal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Reconstruction using a pedicled ileocolic interposition was performed; however, the ileocolic graft failed. After recovery of the nutritional status, salvage reconstruction was planned. Due to a history of Roux-en-Y reconstruction for gastric cancer, jejunal reconstruction was not considered feasible. Therefore, salvage reconstruction was performed using left colon interposition with microscopic supercharge and superdrainage anastomosis. The graft was pedicled by the left colic artery and the inferior mesenteric vein, and microscopic anastomosis was performed between the intrathoracic and middle colic vessels. The patient recovered without major complications and retained the ability to consume normal food.

DISCUSSION

Microscopic supercharge and superdrainage vascular anastomosis have been reported to ensure augmented blood flow. This is the first case report of successful salvage reconstruction using the left colon interposition technique following failure of ileocolic interposition for esophageal cancer.

CONCLUSION

We report a case of salvage reconstruction using left colon interposition with microscopic supercharge and superdrainage anastomosis following failure of ileocolic reconstruction for esophageal cancer.

Evolution of Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Esophageal Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis of 1500 Consecutive Esophagostomies

Objective

To clarify the surgical outcomes of esophagectomy in Japan and comprehensively evaluate trends over time. It is important to analyze data from a large number of consecutive patients from a single institution.

Methods

We evaluated the treatment outcomes, complications, and prognosis of 1500 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy during 5 periods: group A (n = 284), 1964-1984; group B (n = 345), 1985-1993; group C (n = 253), 1994-2002; group D (n = 297), 2003-2012; and group E (n = 321), 2013-March 2020.

Results

The incidences of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma were 93.8% and 3.3%, respectively. The proportion of adenocarcinoma cases has gradually increased over time. The in-hospital mortality rates for groups A, B, C, D, and E were 12%, 4.6%, 1.2%, 2.9%, and 1.5%, respectively. Group A had a significantly higher mortality rate than the other groups (P < 0.0001). Three-year survival rates were 22.2%, 47.8%, 53.4%, 69.9%, and 72.6% in groups A-E, respectively, 5-year survival rates were 17.2%, 41.3%, 49.2%, 63.9%, and 68.4%, respectively (P < 0.0001, group A vs groups D and E). The prognosis improved over time. Multivariate analysis revealed that depth of invasion, lymph node metastasis, the extent of lymph node resection, curative resection, pulmonary complications, and anastomotic leakage were significant independent prognostic factors. However, for recent surgeries (groups D and E), only the depth of invasion, lymph node metastasis, and curative resection were significant independent prognostic factors.

Conclusions

Valuable changes in background and prognostic factors occurred over time. These findings will help optimize esophageal cancer management and improve patient outcomes.

Distal-continual colon interposition for esophageal reconstruction after esophagectomy: Two case reports

Background

Colon interposition is a complex and time-consuming procedure requiring at least three or four digestive anastomoses. However, the long-term functional outcomes are promising, with an acceptable operative risk.

Case presentation

Herein, two cases of esophageal carcinoma that received esophagus reconstruction using the distal continual colon interposition technique have been described. The transverse colon was lifted to the thoracic cavity for the end-to-side anastomosis with the esophagus, and a closure device was used to close the colon instead of severing and isolating the distal end. The duration of the operation was 140 and 150 min, respectively. The blood supply of the colon was maintained during the intervention. The tension-free anastomosis was performed without severe complications, and oral food intake was resumed on postoperative day 6. Neither anastomotic stenosis, antiacid or heartburn, dysphagia, or emptying obstacles nor complaints of diarrhea, bloating, or malodor were reported during the follow-up period.

Conclusions

The modified distal-continual colon interposition technique may have the advantages of a short operation time and potential prevention of serious complications caused by the torsion of mesocolon vessels.

Nutritional benefit of remnant gastric preservation in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing radical esophagectomy and ileo-colon interposition

Background

This retrospective study aimed to investigate the short-term surgical outcomes and nutritional status of ileo-colon interposition in patients with esophageal cancer who could not undergo gastric tube reconstruction.

Methods

Sixty-four patients underwent subtotal esophagectomy with reconstruction using ileo-colon interposition for esophageal cancer at the Wakayama Medical University Hospital between January 2001 and July 2020. Using propensity scores to strictly balance the significant variables, we compared treatment outcomes.

Results

Before matching, 18 patients had cologastrostomy and 46 patients had colojejunostomy. After matching, we enrolled 34 patients (n = 17 in cologastrostomy group, n = 17 in colojejunostomy group). Median operation time in the cologastrostomy group was significantly shorter than that in the colojejunostomy group (499 min vs. 586 min; P = 0.013). Perforation of the colon graft was observed in three patients (7%) and colon graft necrosis was observed in one patient (2%) in the gastrojejunostomy group. Median body weight change 1 year after surgery in the cologastrostomy group was significantly less than that of the colojejunostomy group (92.9% vs. 88.5%; P = 0.038). Further, median serum total protein level 1 year after surgery in the cologastrostomy group was significantly higher than that of the colojejunostomy group (7.0 g/dL vs. 6.6 g/dL, P = 0.030).

Conclusions

Subtotal esophagectomy with reconstruction using ileo-colon interposition is a safe and feasible procedure for the patients with esophageal cancer in whom gastric tubes cannot be used. Cologastrostomy with preservation of the remnant stomach had benefits in the surgical outcomes and the postoperative nutritional status.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-022-01704-x.

Near-infrared fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green to assess the blood supply of the reconstructed gastric conduit to reduce anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy: a literature review

The blood supply of the right gastroepiploic artery after esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction is essential for avoiding anastomotic leakage. Near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) imaging with indocyanine green is widely used to assess the blood supply because it can visualize it in real-time during navigation surgery. However, there is no established protocol for this modality. One reason for this lack of protocol is that NIRF provides subjective information. This study aimed to evaluate NIRF quantification. We conducted a literature review of risk factors for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy, NIRF procedures, NIRF quantification, and new methods to compensate for NIRF limitations. Major methods for the quantification of NIRF include measuring the blood flow speed, visualization time, and fluorescence intensity. The cutoff value for the blood flow speed is 2.07 cm/s, and that for the visualization time is 30-90 s. Although the time-intensity curve provided patterns of change in the blood flow, it did not show an association with anastomotic leakage. However, to compensate for the limitations of NIRF, new devices have been reported that can assess tissue oxygenation perfusion, organ hemoglobin concentration, and microcirculation.

Operative outcomes and long-term survival of patients undergoing colon interposition after esophagectomy for cancer

Background

The first choice of an esophageal substitute after esophagectomy for cancer is the stomach. However, the colon must be considered for reconstruction in specific situations. The purpose of this study was to clarify the frequency and clinical features of patients who underwent colon interposition in thoracic esophagectomy and to investigate the postoperative complications and survival.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective case–control study in the National Cancer Center Hospital East, Japan. Patients who underwent colon interposition after esophagectomy for cancer between 2010 and 2020 were analyzed.

Results

Eighty‐eight patients underwent esophagectomy with colon interposition; 53.2% received preoperative treatment and 52.3% underwent thoracoscopic surgery. Clavien–Dindo grade >III postoperative complications occurred in 42% of the patients; anastomotic leakage was the most common complication, occurring in 26.1% of the cases. Univariate analysis of the factors associated with Clavien–Dindo grade <III complications showed that the period 2015–2020 and totally mechanical Collard anastomosis were significant factors, with odds ratios (OR) of 0.264 and 0.267 (p = 0.00327 and p = 0.00335), respectively. Totally mechanical Collard anastomosis was associated with a lower risk of anastomotic leakage by univariate and multivariate analysis (OR, 0.257, p = 0.00566 and OR, 0.285, p = 0.133, respectively). Three‐year overall survival was 54.2%. Univariate and multivariate analysis of overall survival showed that older age was a risk factor (OR, 1.08) for complications.

Conclusion

In colon reconstruction after esophageal cancer resection, totally mechanical Collard anastomosis for cervical anastomosis may reduce the risk of Clavien–Dindo grade >III complications.

Salvage Esophagectomy

Salvage esophagectomy is an option for patients with recurrent or persistent esophageal cancer after definitive chemoradiation therapy or those who undergo active surveillance after induction chemoradiation therapy. Salvage resection is associated with higher rates of morbidity compared with planned esophagectomy but offers patients with locally advanced disease a chance at improved long-term survival. Salvage resection should be preferentially performed in a multidisciplinary setting by high-volume and experienced surgeons. Technical considerations, such as prior radiation dosage, radiation field, and choice of conduit, should be taken into account.

Thoracoscopic esophagectomy in total pharyngolaryngoesophagectomy for esophageal cancer; A case series

Background

Total pharyngolaryngoesophagectomy (TPLE) is associated with major complications and is extremely invasive. In 2011, our institution introduced thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the left hemi-prone position and laparoscopic reconstruction with a gastric tube in patients undergoing TPLE. Herein, we describe the use of this operative method in 26 patients, focusing on the technical aspects of the surgery.

Materials and methods

From January 2011 to December 2018, 26 patients underwent minimally invasive TPLE with gastric tube reconstruction in our institute. The thoracoscopic procedure was performed with the patient in the semi-prone position. The patient was then moved to the supine position, and the laparoscopic procedure and pharyngolaryngectomy were started simultaneously. After pharyngolaryngectomy, microvascular anastomoses or free jejunal flap interposition were performed at the site of the gastric tube reconstruction. The data from these 26 patients were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

The median age was 66 years, and 3.8% of the patients were female. The Union for International Cancer Control stages of esophageal cancer were 0 (n = 2), I (n = 4), II (n = 7), III (n = 8), and IV (n = 5). Eight patients had concomitant esophageal cancer and head and neck cancer. Reconstruction with only a narrow gastric tube was used in 16 patients, while free jejunal flap interposition was used in 10 patients. The surgical procedures resulted in minimal complications. Postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥1 included anastomotic leakage in two patients and pneumonia in one.

Conclusion

Thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the left hemi-prone position and laparoscopic reconstruction with a gastric tube in patients undergoing TPLE was safe and effective. The complications were improved via the development of various procedures. Further improvement is necessary before this thoracoscopic approach is established as a standard procedure for TPLE.

•

Total pharyngolaryngoesophagectomy (TPLE) is invasive and complicated procedure.

•

The frequency of complications of thoracoscopic TPLE are less than that of thoracotomy.

•

Minimally invasive thoracoscopic TPLE for esophageal cancer is safe and feasible.

Treatment protocol for secondary esophageal reconstruction using 'supercharged' colon interposition flaps

Locoregional esophageal cancer is currently treated with induction chemoradiotherapy, followed by esophagectomy with reconstruction, using a gastric conduit. In cases of conduit failure, patients are temporized with a cervical esophagostomy and enteral nutrition until gastrointestinal continuity can be established. At our institution, we favor reconstruction, using a colon interposition with a 'supercharged' accessory vascular pedicle. Consequently, we sought to examine our technique and outcomes for esophageal reconstruction, using this approach. We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent esophagectomy at our center between 2008 and 2018. We identified those patients who had a failed gastric conduit and underwent secondary reconstruction. Patient demographics, perioperative details, and clinical outcomes were analyzed after our clinical care pathway was used to manage and prepare patients for a second major reconstructive surgery. Three hundred and eighty eight patients underwent esophagectomy and reconstruction with a gastric conduit. Seven patients (1.8%) suffered gastric conduit loss and underwent a secondary reconstruction using a colon interposition with a 'supercharged' vascular pedicle. Mean age was 70.1 (±7.3) years, and six patients were male. The transverse colon was used in four cases (57.1%), left colon in two cases (28.6%), and right colon in one case (14.3%). There were no deaths or loss of the colon interposition at follow-up. Three patients (42.9%) developed an anastomotic leak, which resolved with conservative management. All patients had resumption of oral intake within 30 days. Utilizing a 'supercharging' technique for colon interposition may improve the perfusion to the organ and may decrease morbidity. Secondary reconstruction should occur when the patient's oncologic, physiologic, and psychosocial condition is optimized. Our outcomes and preoperative strategies may provide guidance for those centers treating this complicated patient population.

How to ensure immediate and long-term good blood supply by the careful dissection of the marginal artery and supercharge with neck vessels in esophageal reconstruction with the colon segment interposition: 35 years of experience

BACKGROUND

Colon interposition for total esophageal replacement cases represents one of the most challenging procedures in surgery. A retrospective study has been conducted and suggestions are proposed according to the analysis of 268 patients who underwent colon interposition for esophageal replacement. Complication rates and the duration of hospital stay were retrospectively analyzed.

METHODS

A total of 268 patients were operated between 1984 and 2018. In group 1, 164 patients underwent colon interposition without supercharging with neck vessels and in group 2, 104 patients underwent colon interposition with supercharging. Data regarding flap loss, anastomotic leakage, the duration of hospital stay, and stricture formation in the long-term were statistically analyzed and compared between two groups.

RESULTS

The success rate of reconstruction was 98,1% (161 of 164 patients) and 99% (103 of 104 patients) for group 1 and 2, respectively. Early complication (anastomotic leakage) rate was 4,9% in group 1 and 1% in group 2. The differences between two groups regarding flap loss and anastomotic leakage rates were not statistically significant (p = 0,495 and p = 0,077, respectively). The hospital stay was 26,3 days for patients without supercharging (group1) and 20,5 days for patients with supercharging (group 2). In group 1, 6,7% (11/164) of patients had narrowing at the junction of the pharynx and colon; however, in group 2, proximal anastomotic stricture formation was observed in only 1% (1/104) of the patients. The stricture rate was significantly lower in group 2 when compared to group 1 (p = 0,021).

CONCLUSION

The careful dissection of the marginal artery and supercharging with neck vessels provide lower complication rates in colon interposition for esophageal reconstruction.

Thoracoscopic total esophagogastrectomy with supercharged colon interposition for the treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma in situs inversus

Background: Esophagectomy in situs inversus is challenging. With long-segment supercharged reconstruction, it becomes more perplexing and multidisciplinary surgical skills are needed. Challenges met and the surgical technique used is presented in this case report. Methods: The case of a 49-year old patient with situs inversus abdominus and a locally advanced distal esophageal adenocarcinoma extending to the stomach is presented. Results: Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and due to inability to use the stomach as a conduit, a thoracoscopic total esophagogastrectomy with long-segment reconstruction was performed. The conduit used was the left colon and was supercharged with venous and arterial anastomoses in the neck. Conduit perfusion, as assessed by the Spy system revealed marked improvement post supercharging. No anastomotic leak was noted and oral diet was started on day 4. On day 26 the patient developed pneumonia necessitating intubation that was declined. Organ support was withheld with patient death at day 29. Conclusion: In long-segment esophageal reconstruction with supercharged colon, although thoracoscopy is feasible, laparoscopy is found unsafe. Careful preoperative planning and colon assessment via computed tomography(CT) colonography/angiography and a multidisciplinary team approach is recommended. Adjuncts to assess conduit perfusion like the Spy system are helpful. Supercharging the long colonic conduit is a way of minimizing ischemia-related complications.

Microsurgical options after the failure of left colon interposition graft in esophagogastric reconstruction

Colon interposition is commonly used for esophageal reconstruction in patients with a previous gastrectomy. However, when colon interposition fails and alternative reconstruction is required, there are few options for reconstructing the long segment from the esophagus to the stomach. Here, we report on cases of esophagogastric reconstruction with limited alternative options after the failure of transverse and left colon interposition. In these cases, reconstruction was performed using two different microvascular methods: double-pedicle jejunal free flap and supercharged ileocolic interposition graft.

Colonic Interposition After Adult Oesophagectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Conduit Choice and Outcome

BACKGROUND

Colonic interposition is a second-line option after oesophagectomy when a gastric neo-oesophagus is not viable. There is no consensus on the optimum anatomical colonic conduit (right or left), or route of placement (posterior mediastinal, retrosternal or subcutaneous). The aim of this review was to determine the optimum site and route of neo-oesophageal conduit after adult oesophagectomy.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library (January 1985 to January 2017) were systematically searched for studies which reported outcomes following colonic interposition in adults. The outcome measures were overall morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven observational studies involving 1849 patients [1177 males; median age (range) 60.5 (18-84) years] undergoing colonic interposition for malignant (n = 697) and benign (n = 1152) pathology were analysed. Overall pooled morbidity of left vs. right colonic conduit was 15.7% [95% CI (11.93-19.46), p < 0.001] and 18.7% [95% CI (15.58-21.82), p < 0.001] respectively. Overall pooled mortality of left vs. right colonic conduit was 6.5% [95% CI (4.55-8.51), p < 0.001] and 10.1% [95% CI (7.35-12.82), p < 0.001] respectively. Retrosternal route placement was associated with the lowest overall pooled morbidity and mortality of 9.2% [95% CI (6.48-11.99), p < 0.001] and 4.8% [95% CI (3.74-5.89), p < 0.001] respectively.

CONCLUSION

Left colonic conduits placed retrosternally were safest.

Colon Interposition for Esophageal Reconstruction in Cancer Patients

Objective:

The aim of this study was to report our experience with colon interposition (COI) and to compare the results with an extensive review of the COI literature.

Summary of Background Data:

The stomach is the first choice as an esophageal substitute following esophagectomy in cancer patients, while COI is reserved for patients where the stomach is not available or must be included in the resection due to cancer.

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed the records of cancer patients undergoing colon interposition from 2006 to 2017. Outcomes were compared with an extensive review of the literature published between 2000 and 2017.

Results:

A total of 13 patients underwent planned COI. Mortality was zero and overall morbidity was 53%; 4 patients suffered from leakage and 2 patients from strictures. None of the patients suffered from necrosis of the interponat and there was no need for subsequent redundancy operations.

The extensive review identified 23 publications. Overall study grading was low (grade C). Only 3 studies were prospective, no randomized studies were found, and many outcomes were poorly defined. The rates for 30-day and in-hospital mortality were 1% and 2%, respectively. Overall morbidity was 43%. The reported number of leakages, strictures, necrosis of the interponat, and redundancy operations varied between 0% and 50%, 0% and 21%, 0% and 9%, and 0% and 2%, respectively.

Conclusions:

COI is a complex technique that is necessary in a relatively small group of selected patients after esophagectomy for cancer. Prospective and comparative studies with strict outcome definitions, long-term follow up, and patient reported outcome measures are lacking.

Peculiarities of intra-thoracic colon interposition-eso-coloplasty: indications, surgical management and outcomes

Stomach is the usual organ of choice for oesophageal replacement. Gastric pull-up is a standardized, fast and secure procedure, requiring only one anastomosis and usually performed with mini-invasive techniques. Colon is used when the stomach is not available, for tumours of the upper oesophagus or the hypopharynx, for benign or paediatric diseases. It is a complex surgery requiring a specific pre-operative management, three or four anastomoses, and a careful choice of the route of reconstruction. Early post-operative complications, such as anastomotic leakage, are frequent. Long-term outcomes are marked by strictures of the anastomosis and redundancy, but the reported quality of life of the patients is good. Eso-coloplasty remains a safe and feasible alternative to gastric pull-up for oesophageal replacement, for specific indications.

Clinicopathological Features of Cervical Esophageal Cancer: Retrospective Analysis of 63 Consecutive Patients Who Underwent Surgical Resection

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this retrospective study were to elucidate the clinicopathological features and recent surgical results of cervical esophageal cancer.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Cervical esophageal cancer has been reported to have a dismal prognosis. Accurate knowledge of the clinical characteristics of cervical esophageal cancer is warranted to establish appropriate therapeutic strategies.

METHODS

The clinicopathological features and treatment results of 63 consecutive patients with cervical esophageal cancer (Ce group) who underwent surgical resection from 1980 to 2013 were analyzed and compared with 977 patients with thoracic or abdominal esophageal cancer (T/A group) who underwent surgical resection during that time.

RESULTS

Among the patients who received curative resection, the 5-year overall and disease-specific survival rates of the Ce patients were significantly better than those of the T/A patients (overall: 77.3% vs 46.5%, respectively, P = 0.0067; disease-specific: 81.9% vs 55.8%, respectively, P = 0.0135). Although total pharyngo-laryngo-esophagectomy procedures were less frequently performed in the recent period, the rate of curative surgical procedures was markedly higher in the recent period (2000-1013) than that in the early period (1980-1999) (44.4% vs 88.9%, P = 0.0001). The 5-year overall survival rate in the recent period (71.5%) was significantly better than that in the early period (40.7%, P = 0.0342).

CONCLUSIONS

Curative resection for cervical esophageal cancer contributes to favorable outcomes compared with other esophageal cancers. Recent surgical results for cervical esophageal cancer have improved, and include an increased rate of curative resection and decreased rate of extensive surgery.

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.

Usefulness of the Clavien-Dindo Classification in Understanding the Limitations and Indications of Larynx-preserving Esophageal Reconstruction

Background:

The Clavien–Dindo (CD) classification is used to evaluate the severity of surgical complications. However, its usefulness in esophageal reconstruction has not been reported. To address this, this case series study used the CD classification to evaluate the complications after cervical esophageal reconstruction with free jejunum transfer or supercharged pedicled intestinal transfer.

Methods:

All consecutive patients who underwent esophageal cancer surgery with larynx-preserving free jejunum or pedicled ileocolic transfer in June 2012–December 2015 were identified. The postoperative complications were classified using the CD classification.

Results:

In total, 22 patients (20 men and 2 women; mean age, 63.3 years) underwent esophageal cancer reconstruction with larynx-preserving free jejunum transfer (n = 9) and supercharged pedicled intestinal transfer (n = 13). Seven patients underwent prophylactic tracheotomy. Four patients underwent emergent tracheotomy 1 or 5 days after surgery. The most frequent complication was recurrent nerve paralysis (RNP) (n = 8). Of these 8 RNP cases, 6 and 2 were classified as CD I and III complications, respectively. Pneumonia was the next most common complication (n = 7). Of these 7 pneumonia cases, 5 and 2 were classified as CD II and III, respectively. There were 2 cases of intestinal anastomosis leakage (CD II and III). On average, patients were able to start oral alimentation 15.1 (9–35) days after surgery.

Conclusions:

Our analysis with the CD classification suggested that vascularized free jejunum transfer or supercharge-drainage pedicled ileocolic transfer prevents postoperative intestinal anastomosis leakage and that prophylactic tracheotomy is especially indicated in cases with significant surgical damage in the cervical region.

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.

European perspective in Thoracic surgery-eso-coloplasty: when and how?

Colon interposition has been used since the beginning of the 20(th) century as a substitute for esophageal replacement. Colon interposition is mainly chosen as a second line treatment when the stomach cannot be used, when the stomach has to be resected for oncological or technical reasons, or when the stomach is deliberately kept intact for benign diseases in young patients with long-life expectancy. During the surgery the vascularization of the colon must be carefully assessed, as well as the type of the graft (right or left colon), the length of the graft, the surgical approach and the route of the reconstruction. Early complications such as graft necrosis or anastomotic leaks, and late complications such as redundancy depend on the quality of the initial surgery. Despite a complex and time-consuming procedure requiring at least three or four digestive anastomoses, reported long term functional outcomes of colon interposition are good, with an acceptable operative risk. Thus, in very selected indications, colon interposition could be seen as a valuable alternative for esophageal replacement when stomach cannot be considered. This review aims at briefly defining "when" and "how" to perform a coloplasty through demonstrative videos.

Secondary reconstruction with a transverse colon covered with a pectoralis major muscle flap and split thickness skin grafts for an esophageal defect and wide skin defects of the anterior chest wall

Necrosis of a reconstructed organ after esophagectomy is a rare postoperative complication. However, in case this complication develops, severe infectious complications can occur, and subsequent surgical reconstruction is quite complicated. To treat esophageal conduit necrosis after esophageal reconstruction with the terminal ileum and ascending colon, we reconstructed the esophagus using a transverse colon, which was covered with a pectoralis major muscle flap to reinforce the anastomotic site. In addition, split thickness skin grafts were applied to the wide skin defect to cover the reconstructed organs at the antesternal route. Widely extended split thickness skin grafts can adhere to the reconstructed organs without excessive tension. Therefore, this method enabled successful treatment of an esophageal defect and wide skin defects of the anterior chest wall.

Esophageal reconstruction by colon interposition after esophagectomy for cancer analysis of current indications, operative outcomes, and long-term survival

INTRODUCTION

Colon interposition is an alternative solution for esophageal reconstruction if the stomach cannot be used. The study reviews current indications and results of coloplasty for cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colon interposition for gastro-esophageal malignancy were included. Primary coloplasty was defined as upfront colon interposition. Salvage coloplasty was defined as colon interposition after primary reconstruction failure. Mortality, morbidity, function, and survival were evaluated.

RESULTS

We included 28 patients (24 men, median age 61 years). Ten (36%) patients underwent primary coloplasty due to previous gastrectomy (n = 5), conduit gastric cancer (n = 2), extensive gastroesophageal involvement (n = 2), and gastric cancer recurrence (n = 1). Salvage coloplasty was performed in 18 (64%) patients for postoperative graft necrosis (n = 5) and intractable strictures (n = 3). Operative mortality, morbidity, and graft necrosis rates were 14% (4/28), 86% (24/28), and 14% (4/28), respectively; there were no significant differences between primary and salvage coloplasty. Survival rates at 1-, 3-, and 5 years were 81%, 51%, and 38%, respectively. Survival was decreased after primary coloplasty when compared to salvage coloplasty (P = 0.03). Nine patients experienced tumor recurrence (primary: n = 6, salvage: n = 3) after coloplasty and eight of them died.

CONCLUSION

Colon interposition after esophagectomy is a useful but morbid endeavor. Colon interposition as salvage therapy is associated with improved survival compared to its use as primary esophageal replacement, and colon interposition in the latter cohort should be used with caution due to poor cancer-specific survival in this patient population.

Feasibility of esophageal reconstruction using a pedicled jejunum with intrathoracic esophagojejunostomy in the upper mediastinum for esophageal cancer

OBJECTIVE

An alternative conduit is needed when the gastric tube cannot be used as an esophageal substitute for reconstruction after esophagectomy. We adopted pedicle jejunal reconstruction with intrathoracic anastomosis in the upper mediastinum under such circumstances. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of this technique.

METHODS

Two hundred and ten patients with esophageal cancer underwent esophagectomy and reconstruction from 1998 to 2013. Among them, 6 patients underwent colon interposition (colon group) and 13 underwent jejunum reconstruction (jejunum group) including 8 thoracoscopic anastomosis. The operative results of both groups were compared with those of 191 gastric tube reconstructions (stomach group).

RESULTS

The operative times in the colon and jejunum groups were significantly longer than that in the stomach group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.018, respectively). The colon group showed more operative blood loss and more frequent anastomotic leakage and ischemic stenosis of the conduit than did the stomach group (1605 vs. 530 g, P = 0.007; 50 vs. 12.6 %, P = 0.035; 16.7 vs. 0 %, P = 0.03, respectively). There was no anastomotic leakage, conduit necrosis and mortality in the jejunum group. Ischemic stenosis of the conduit occurred more frequently in jejunum group than in the stomach group (23.1 vs. 0 %, P < 0.001). However, the stenosis could be managed safely with endoscopic treatment. Patient survival in the colon and jejunum groups was consistent with that in the stomach group.

CONCLUSIONS

Pedicle jejunal reconstruction with intrathoracic anastomosis can be performed safely under thoracotomy or thoracoscopic surgery when stomach cannot be used as an esophageal substitute after esophagectomy.

Technical improvement of total pharyngo-laryngo-esophagectomy for esophageal cancer and head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

Total pharyngo-laryngo-esophagectomy (PLE) is highly invasive, and the subsequent reconstruction is difficult. The purpose of this study was to clarify the techniques that can decrease the surgical stress and allow for safe reconstruction after this operation.

METHODS

The surgical method and clinical outcomes of total PLE were reviewed in 12 patients with either cervicothoracic esophageal cancer or double cancer of the esophagus and pharynx. Microscopic venous anastomosis was principally performed, and arterial anastomosis was added, if needed.

RESULTS

A narrow gastric tube was used in ten patients, including two patients who underwent free jejunal interposition, while the colon was used as the main reconstructed organ in two other patients. Staged operations were performed in three high-risk patients. All six patients treated after 2010 were able to undergo thoracoscopic and/or laparoscopic surgery. No critical postoperative complications developed, although minor anastomotic leakage developed in two patients who were successfully treated conservatively.

CONCLUSION

When performing PLE, it is important to decrease the surgical stress and ensure a reliable reconstruction by adopting techniques that are appropriate for each case, such as thoracoscopic and laparoscopic surgery, staged operations, microvascular anastomosis, and muscular flaps.

Surgical resection for esophageal cancer synchronously or metachronously associated with head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Esophageal cancer is frequently associated with head and neck cancer, and esophagectomy is usually difficult in such a case. The purpose of this study was to clarify the clinical significance of esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer associated either synchronously or metachronously with head and neck cancer.

METHODS

The clinical outcomes of surgical resections for esophageal cancer were compared between 26 patients with head and neck cancer (double cancer group) and 176 without head and neck cancer (control group).

RESULTS

Staged operations were performed in 5 patients in the double cancer group, while microvascular anastomosis as well as a muscle flap was added for 3 and 4 patients, respectively. The mortality and morbidity of the double cancer group were 0 and 35 %, respectively, which were not significantly different from those of the control group (3 and 31 %, respectively). There were no significant differences in overall survival in the double cancer and control groups, which had 5-year survival rates of 59 and 49 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophagectomy can be an effective treatment when techniques are adopted that are appropriate for each case, such as staged operations, muscular flaps, and microvascular anastomosis, even in patients with double cancers of the esophagus and the head and neck.