The Role of Endoscopic Stent in Management of Postesophagectomy Leaks

The Use of Esophageal Stents in the Management of Postoperative Fistulas-Current Status, Clinical Outcomes and Perspectives-Review

Esophageal fistula remains one of the main postoperative complications, with the treatment often requiring the use of stents. This article reviews the updates on the use of endoscopic stents for the treatment of postoperative esophageal leakage in terms of indications, types of stents used, efficiency, specific complications and perspectives.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the PubMed and MEDLINE databases for the keywords postoperative esophageal anastomotic leak and postoperative esophageal anastomotic leak stent, and retrieved relevant papers published until December 2022.

RESULTS

The endoscopic discovery of the fistula is usually followed by the insertion of a fully covered esophageal stent. It has an efficiency of more than 60% in closing the fistula, and the failure is related to the delayed application of the method, a situation more suitable for endo vac therapy. The most common complication is migration, but life-threatening complications have also been described. The combination of the advantages of endoscopic stents and vacuum therapy is probably found in the emerging VACstent procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the competing approaches give promising results, this method has a well-defined place in the treatment of esophageal fistulas, and it is probably necessary to refine the indications for each individual procedure.

Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy (EVT) versus Self-Expandable Metal Stent (SEMS) for Anastomotic Leaks after Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatment of post-esophagectomy/gastrectomy anastomotic dehiscence includes Self-Expandable Metal Stents (SEMS), which have represented the "gold standard" for many years, and Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy (EVT), which was recently introduced, showing promising results. The aim of the study was to compare outcomes of SEMS and EVT in the treatment of post-esophagectomy/gastrectomy anastomotic leaks, focusing on oncologic surgery.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on Pubmed and Embase, identifying studies comparing EVT versus SEMS for the treatment of leaks after upper gastro-intestinal surgery for malignant or benign pathologies. The primary outcome was the rate of successful leak closure. A meta-analysis was conducted, performing an a priori-defined subgroup analysis for the oncologic surgery group.

RESULTS

Eight retrospective studies with 357 patients were eligible. Overall, the EVT group showed a higher success rate (odd ratio [OR] 2.58, 95% CI 1.43-4.66), a lower number of devices (pooled mean difference [pmd] 4.90, 95% CI 3.08-6.71), shorter treatment duration (pmd -9.18, 95% CI -17.05--1.32), lower short-term complication (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.71) and mortality rates (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24-0.92) compared to stenting. In the oncologic surgery subgroup analysis, no differences in the success rate were found (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.74-3.40, I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, EVT has been revealed to be more effective and less burdened by complications compared to stenting. In the oncologic surgery subgroup analysis, efficacy rates were similar between the two groups. Further prospective data need to define a unique management algorithm for anastomotic leaks.

Endoscopic vacuum therapy for post-esophagectomy anastomotic dehiscence as rescue treatment: a single center case series

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) represents an effective endoscopic technique for the treatment of post-esophagectomy leaks and can be used after failure of primary treatment. We aimed to investigate endoscopic data and success rate of EVT for post-esophagectomy anastomotic leaks, after failed redo surgery or previous endoscopic treatment.

METHODS

We retrospectively recruited 12 patients from January 2018 to October 2020. Success was defined as dehiscence closure at radiological and/or endoscopic evaluation. Ethical Committee of our institution approved the study.

RESULTS

Twelve patients (66.7% male, mean age 65.08 ± 16.7 years) affected by esophago-gastric (n = 10) or esophago-jejunal (n = 2) anastomosis dehiscences after oncologic surgery were treated with EVT, after failure of previous redo-surgical (n = 3, 25%) or endoscopic management (n = 9, 75%). Technical success rate was 100% (60/60 procedures) and dehiscence closure was achieved in three quarters of patients (9/12, 75%). Regarding complications, one case of sponge dislocation (1/60 = 1.7%) and another case of delayed stricture after post-EVT stent placement (1/60 = 1.7%) were recorded, during a mean follow up of 182.3 days.

CONCLUSIONS

EVT is a promising option in the treatment of the most complicated anastomotic dehiscences. Its use could be also considered after failure of previous endoscopic or surgical management.

Transthoracic Esophagectomy: Hand-sewn Versus Side-to-side Linear-stapled Versus Circular-stapled Anastomosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Three anastomotic techniques are mostly used to create an esophagogastric anastomosis in a transthoracic esophagectomy: hand-sewn (HS), side-to-side linear-stapled (SSLS), and circular-stapled (CS). The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes after HS, SSLS, and CS intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review using the MEDLINE database was performed to identify original articles analyzing outcomes after HS, SSLS, and CS esophagogastric anastomosis. The main outcome was an anastomotic leakage rate. Secondary outcomes included overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each anastomotic technique on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 101 studies comprising 12,595 patients were included; 8835 (70.1%) with CS, 2532 (20.1%) with HS, and 1228 (9.8%) with SSLS anastomosis. Anastomotic leak occurred in 10% [95% confidence interval (CI), 6%-15%], 9% (95% CI, 6%-13%), and 6% (95% CI, 5%-7%) of patients after HS, SSLS, and CS anastomosis, respectively. Risk of anastomotic leakage was significantly higher with HS anastomosis (odds ratio=1.73, 95% CI: 1.47-2.03, P<0.0001) and SSLS (odds ratio=1.68, 95% CI: 1.36-2.08, P<0.0001), as compared with CS. Overall morbidity (HS: 52% vs. SLSS: 39% vs. CS: 35%) and major morbidity (HS: 33% vs. CS: 19%) rates were significantly lower with CS anastomosis. Mortality rate was 4% (95% CI, 3%-6%), 2% (95% CI, 2%-3%), and 3% (95% CI, 3%-4%) after HS, SSLS, and CS anastomosis, respectively.

CONCLUSION

HS and SSLS intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomoses are associated with significantly higher rates of an anastomotic leak than CS anastomosis.

Endoscopic Management for Post-Surgical Complications after Resection of Esophageal Cancer

Simple Summary

Flexible endoscopy has an important part in the diagnosis and treatment of postoperative complications after oncologically intended esophagectomy. Endoscopy offers the possibility of effective therapy with minimal invasiveness at the same time, and the use of endoscopic therapy procedures can avoid re-operations. In this review we present the advantages of endoscopic treatment opportunities during the last 20 years regarding patients’ treatment after esophageal cancer resection. According to prevalence and clinical relevance, four relevant postoperative complications were identified and their endoscopic treatment procedures discussed. All endoscopic therapy procedures for anastomotic bleeding, anastomotic insufficiencies, anastomotic stenosis and postoperative delayed gastric emptying are presented, including innovative developments.

Abstract

Background: Esophageal cancer (EC) is the sixth-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the world. Esophagectomy is the most effective treatment for patients without invasion of adjacent organs or distant metastasis. Complications and relevant problems may occur in the early post-operative course or in a delayed fashion. Here, innovative endoscopic techniques for the treatment of postsurgical problems were developed during the past 20 years. Methods: Endoscopic treatment strategies for the following postoperative complications are presented: anastomotic bleeding, anastomotic insufficiency, delayed gastric passage and anastomotic stenosis. Based on a literature review covering the last two decades, therapeutic procedures are presented and analyzed. Results: Addressing the four complications mentioned, clipping, stenting, injection therapy, dilatation, and negative pressure therapy are successfully utilized as endoscopic treatment techniques today. Conclusion: Endoscopic treatment plays a major role in both early-postoperative and long-term aftercare. During the past 20 years, essential therapeutic measures have been established. A continuous development of these techniques in the field of endoscopy can be expected.