Management of anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy: when to intervene?

Pre-operative psoas muscle index, a surrogate for sarcopenia; as a predictor of post-esophagectomy complications

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy is the standard of care for curative esophageal cancer. However, it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Esophageal cancer is known to negatively affect the nutritional status of patients and many manifest cancer sarcopenia. At present, measures of sarcopenia involve complex and often subjective measurements. We assess whether the Psoas Muscle Index (PMI); an inexpensive, simple, validated method used to diagnose sarcopenia, can be used to predict adverse outcomes in patients after curative esophagectomy.

METHODS

Multi-centre, retrospective cohort between 2010-2020, involving all consecutive patients undergoing curative esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in University Malaya Medical Centre, Sungai Buloh Hospital, and Sultanah Aminah Hospital. The cut-off value differentiating low and normal PMI is defined as 443mm2/m2 in males and 326326 mm2/m2 in females. Complications were recorded using the Clavien-Dindo Scale.

RESULTS

There was no statistical correlation between PMI and major post-esophagectomy complications (p-value: 0.495). However, complication profile was different, and patients with low PMIs had higher 30-day mortality (21.7%) when compared with patients with normal PMI (8.1%) (p-value: 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

Although PMI did not significantly predict post-esophagectomy complications, low PMI correlates with higher 30-day mortality, reflecting a lower tolerance for complications among these patients. PMI is a useful, inexpensive tool to identify sarcopenia and aids the patient selection process. This alerts healthcare professionals to institute intensive physiotherapy and nutritional optimization prior to esophagectomy.

Role of indocyanine green fluorescence imaging for evaluating blood supply in the gastric conduit via the substernal route after McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a determining factor of morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy. Adequate perfusion of the gastric conduit is crucial for AL prevention. This study aimed to determine whether intraoperative angiography using indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence improves the incidence of AL after McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with gastric conduit via the substernal route (SR).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 120 patients who underwent MIE with gastric conduit via SR for esophageal cancer between February 2019 and April 2023. Of 120 patients, 88 experienced intraoperative angiography using ICG (ICG group), and 32 patients experienced intraoperative angiography without ICG (no-ICG group). Baseline characteristics and operative outcomes, including AL as the main concern, were compared between the 2 groups. In addition, the outcomes among patients in the ICG group with different levels of fluorescence intensity were compared.

RESULTS

The ICG and no-ICG groups were comparable in baseline characteristics and operative outcomes. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the rate of AL (31.0% vs 37.5%; P = .505), median dates of AL (9 vs 9 days; P = .810), and severity of AL (88.9%, 11.11%, and 0.0% vs 66.7%, 16.7%, and 16.7% for grades I, II, and III, respectively; P = .074). Patients in the ICG group with lower intensity of ICG had higher rates of leakage (24.6%, 39.3%, and 100% in levels I, II, and III of ICG intensity, respectively; P = .04).

CONCLUSION

The use of ICG did not seem to reduce the rate of AL. However, abnormal intensity of ICG fluorescence was associated with a higher rate of AL, which implies a predictive potential.

Management of esophageal anastomotic leaks, a systematic review and network meta-analysis

There is currently no consensus as to how to manage esophageal anastomotic leaks. Intervention with endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC), stenting, reoperation, and conservative management have all been mooted as potential options. To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the optimal management strategy for esophageal anastomotic leaks. A systematic review was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with extension for NMA. NMA was performed using R packages and Shiny. In total, 12 retrospective studies were included, which included 511 patients. Of the 449 patients for whom data regarding sex was available, 371 (82.6%) were male, 78 (17.4%) were female. The average age of patients was 62.6 years (standard deviation 10.2). The stenting cohort included 245 (47.9%) patients. The EVAC cohort included 123 (24.1%) patients. The conservative cohort included 87 (17.0%) patients. The reoperation cohort included 56 (10.9%) patients. EVAC had a significantly decreased complication rate compared to stenting (odds ratio 0.23 95%, confidence interval [CI] 0.09;0.58). EVAC had a significantly lower mortality rate than stenting (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.21; 0.87). Reoperation was used in significantly larger leaks than stenting (mean difference 14.66, 95% CI 4.61;24.70). The growing use of EVAC as a first-line intervention in esophageal anastomotic leaks should continue given its proven effectiveness and significant reduction in both complication and mortality rates. Surgical management is often necessary for significantly larger leaks and will likely remain an effective option in uncontained leaks with systemic features.

Outcomes of Anastomotic Evaluation Using Indocyanine Green Fluorescence during Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Limited evidence exists assessing whether anastomotic evaluation using indocyanine green fluorescence (IGF) during minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) predicts or improves outcomes. We hypothesized that IGF helps surgeons predict anastomotic complications and reduces anastomotic leaks after MIE.

METHODS

In September 2019, our institution began routinely using IGF for intraoperative evaluation of anastomoses during MIE. Data were collected from patients undergoing MIE in the two years before and after this technology began being routinely used. Baseline characteristics and outcomes, including anastomotic leak, in patients who underwent indocyanine green fluorescence evaluation (ICG) and those who did not (nICG) were compared. Outcomes were also compared between ICG patients with normal versus abnormal fluorescence.

RESULTS

Overall, 181 patients were included. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics did not differ between the ICG and nICG groups. ICG patients experienced higher rates of anastomotic leak (10.2% vs. 1.6%, P = .015) and 90-day mortality (8.5% vs. 1.6%, P = .04) compared to nICG patients. Due to lack of equipment availability, 19 nICG patients underwent MIE after the use of IGF became routine, and none developed leaks. ICG patients with abnormal fluorescence had higher rates of anastomotic leak (71.4% vs 1.9%, P < .001) and 30-day mortality (28.6% vs 0%, P = .012) compared to those with normal fluorescence.

DISCUSSION

Abnormal intraoperative IGF was associated with increased rate of anastomotic leak, suggesting predictive potential of IGF. However, its use was associated with an increased leak rate and higher mortality. Further studies are warranted to assess possible physiologic effects of indocyanine green on the esophageal anastomosis.

The use of indocyanine green (ICYG) angiography intraoperatively to evaluate gastric conduit perfusion during esophagectomy: does it impact surgical decision-making?

BACKGROUND

Ischemia is known to be a major contributor for anastomotic leaks and indocyanine green (ICYG) fluorescence angiography has been utilized to assess perfusion. Experienced esophageal surgeons have clinically assessed the gastric conduit with acceptable outcomes for years. We sought to examine the impact of ICYG in a surgeon's decision-making during esophagectomy.

METHODS

We queried a prospectively maintained database to identify patients who underwent robotic esophagectomy. Time to initial perfusion, time to maximum perfusion, and residual ischemia were measured and used as a guide to resection of residual stomach. During esophagectomy the surgeon identified the anticipated line of ischemic demarcation (LOD) prior to ICYG injection. The distance between the surgeon's LOD and ICYG LOD was measured.

RESULTS

We identified 312 patients who underwent robotic esophagectomy, 251 without ICYG and 61 with ICGY. There were no differences in age, sex, race, body mass index, histology, stage, or neoadjuvant therapy use between groups. The incidence of anastomotic leak did not differ between groups (non-ICYG, 5.2% vs. ICYG, 6.6%), p = 0.67. The initial perfusion time was ≥ 10 s and max perfusion was > 25 s in all the patients in the ICYG that developed anastomotic leaks. All patients were noted to have at least 1 cm of residual gastric ischemia. Fifteen patients underwent independent surgeon evaluation of the ischemic LOD prior to ICYG. Differential distances were noted in 12 (80%) patients with a mean distance between surgical line of demarcation and ICYG LOD of 0.77 cm.

CONCLUSION

While the implementation of ICYG during esophagectomy demonstrates no significant improvements in anastomotic leak rates compared to historical controls, surgeon's decision-making is impacted in 80% of cases resulting in additional resection of the gastric conduit. Elevated times to initial perfusion and maximum perfusion were associated with increased gastric ischemia and anastomotic leaks.

Diagnosis and management of anastomotic leaks after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: a single-center experience

PURPOSE

Esophageal anastomotic leaks (ALs) after esophagectomy are a common and serious complication. The incidence, diagnostic approach, and management have changed over time. We described the diagnosis and management of patients who developed an esophageal AL after an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy at our center.

METHODS

After IRB approval, we queried our prospectively maintained database for patients who developed an esophageal AL after esophagectomy from August 2016 through July 2022. Data pertaining to demographics, comorbidities, surgical and oncological characteristics, and clinical course were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 145 patients underwent an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy; 10 (6.9%) developed an AL, diagnosed a median of 7.5 days after surgery, and detected by enteric contents in wound drains (n = 3), endoscopy (n = 3), CT (n = 2), and contrast esophagogram (n = 2). Nine patients (90%) had an increasing white blood cell count and additional signs of sepsis. One asymptomatic patient was identified by contrast esophagography. All patients received enteral nutritional support, intravenous antibiotics, and antifungals. Primary treatment of ALs included endoscopic placement of a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS; n = 6), surgery (n = 2), and SEMS with endoluminal vacuum therapy (n = 2). One patient required surgery after SEMS placement. The median length of ICU and total hospital stays were 11.5 and 22.5 days, respectively. There was no 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of esophageal ALs at our center is similar to that of other high-volume centers. Most ALs can be managed without surgery; however, ALs remain a significant source of postoperative morbidity despite clinical advancements that have improved mortality.

Prospective Evaluation of a Universally Applied Laparoscopic Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Protocol Prior to Esophagectomy with Comparison with Historical Controls

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak after esophagectomy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Our institution began performing laparoscopic gastric ischemic preconditioning (LGIP) with ligation of the left gastric and short gastric vessels prior to esophagectomy in all patients presenting with resectable esophageal cancer. We hypothesized that LGIP may decrease the incidence and severity of anastomotic leak.

METHODS

Patients were prospectively evaluated following the universal application of LGIP prior to esophagectomy protocol in January 2021 until August 2022. Outcomes were compared with patients who underwent esophagectomy without LGIP from a prospectively maintained database from 2010 to 2020.

RESULTS

We compared 42 patients who underwent LGIP followed by esophagectomy with 222 who underwent esophagectomy without LGIP. Age, sex, comorbidities, and clinical stage were similar between groups. Outpatient LGIP was generally well tolerated, with one patient experiencing prolonged gastroparesis. Median time from LGIP to esophagectomy was 31 days. Mean operative time and blood loss were not significantly different between groups. Patients who underwent LGIP were significantly less likely to develop an anastomotic leak following esophagectomy (7.1% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.038). This finding persisted on multivariate analysis [odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03-0.42, p = 0.029]. The occurrence of any post-esophagectomy complication was similar between groups (40.5% vs. 46.0%, p = 0.514), but patients who underwent LGIP had shorter length of stay [10 (9-11) vs. 12 (9-15), p = 0.020].

CONCLUSIONS

LGIP prior to esophagectomy is associated with a decreased risk of anastomotic leak and length of hospital stay. Further, multi-institutional studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Anatomic patterns of anastomotic leaks after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for cancer: Impact on management and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage presentation after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy may vary on imaging. Such variations may influence anastomotic leakage management and outcomes.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for cancer between 2012 and 2019 in 2 referral centers were included. Anatomical patterns of anastomotic leakage were defined on imaging as follows: eso-mediastinal anastomotic leakage was a leak contained in the posterior mediastinum, eso-pleural anastomotic leakage was a leak involving the pleural cavity, and eso-bronchial anastomotic leakage was a leak communicating with the tracheobronchial tract. According to the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group definition, management and 90-day mortality were evaluated according to these patterns.

RESULTS

Among 731 patients, 111 (15%) developed anastomotic leakage consisting of eso-mediastinal anastomotic leakage (n = 87, 79%), eso-pleural anastomotic leakage (n = 16, 14%) and eso-bronchial anastomotic leakage (n = 8, 7%). There was no difference among these groups regarding preoperative characteristics or time to anastomotic leakage diagnosis. There was a significant difference in initial management according to anastomotic leakage anatomic patterns (P = .001). More than half of patients who experienced eso-mediastinal anastomotic leakage (n = 46, 53%) were initially treated conservatively without requiring intervention (Esophageal Complications Consensus Group type I), whereas most patients with eso-pleural anastomotic leakage (n = 14, 87.5%) and all with eso-bronchial anastomotic leakage (n = 8, 100%) initially required interventional or surgical treatment (Esophageal Complications Consensus Group type II-III). Anastomotic leakage anatomic patterns had a statistically significant impact on 90-day mortality, intensive care unit stay, and total hospital stay (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Anastomotic leakage anatomic patterns after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy influence outcomes. Further studies are warranted to validate it in a prospective setting. Anastomotic leakage anatomic patterns may help in guiding anastomotic leakage management.

Chest vs. neck anastomotic leak post esophagectomy for malignancy: rate, predictors, and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak is a major contributor to comorbidity and mortality following esophagectomy. We sought to assess rate and predictors of leak after esophagectomy and compare outcomes of chest versus neck anastomotic leaks.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed utilizing National-Surgical-Quality-Improvement-Program data from 2016-2019 for patients undergoing esophagectomy for malignancy. Preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared. Patients were classified into two groups: Ivor Lewis esophagectomy [ILE, chest leak (CL)] and transhiatal esophagectomy (THE)/McKeown esophagectomy [ME, neck leak (NL)]. Multivariable regression models were constructed to determine predictors of each type of leak and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 1,665 patients underwent esophagectomy with 14.1% reported post-operative leak, 61% of patients underwent ILE while 39% underwent THE or ME. Of patients who underwent ILE, 13.8% had CL with complications including significantly higher length of stay and mortality compared to patients without leak. Independent predictors of CL included: diabetes, hypertension, advanced disease stage, chronic steroid use, and operative time. Ninety-five patients (14.6%) who underwent either THE or ME had NL with similar complications. Diabetes, pre-operative white blood cell (WBC), and operative time were independent predictors for NL. On multivariable regression, CL was associated with greater odds of requiring intervention compared with NL.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-esophagectomy CL and NL are associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Diabetes and operative time were independent predictors for both leaks while steroid use, hypertension, and advanced disease stage predicted CL. CL was associated with greater odds of needing an intervention, but contrary to conventional wisdom, was not associated with higher morbidity or mortality.

Treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: large, collaborative, observational TENTACLE cohort study

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak is a severe complication after oesophagectomy. Anastomotic leak has diverse clinical manifestations and the optimal treatment strategy is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of treatment strategies for different manifestations of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed in 71 centres worldwide and included patients with anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy (2011-2019). Different primary treatment strategies were compared for three different anastomotic leak manifestations: interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (that is no intrathoracic collections; well perfused conduit); drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations; and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

Of 1508 patients with anastomotic leak, 28.2 per cent (425 patients) had local manifestations, 36.3 per cent (548 patients) had intrathoracic manifestations, 9.6 per cent (145 patients) had conduit ischaemia/necrosis, 17.5 per cent (264 patients) were allocated after multiple imputation, and 8.4 per cent (126 patients) were excluded. After propensity score matching, no statistically significant differences in 90-day mortality were found regarding interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (risk difference 3.2 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.8 to 8.2 per cent), drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations (risk difference 5.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.2 to 12.8 per cent), and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis (risk difference 0.1 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -21.4 to 1.6 per cent). In general, less morbidity was found after less extensive primary treatment strategies.

CONCLUSION

Less extensive primary treatment of anastomotic leak was associated with less morbidity. A less extensive primary treatment approach may potentially be considered for anastomotic leak. Future studies are needed to confirm current findings and guide optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy.

Treatment of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: insights of an international case vignette survey and expert discussions

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a severe complication after esophagectomy. Clinical presentation of AL is diverse and there is large practice variation regarding treatment of AL. This study aimed to explore different AL treatment strategies and their underlying rationale. This mixed-methods study consisted of an international survey among upper gastro-intestinal (GI) surgeons and focus groups with expert upper GI surgeons. The survey included 10 case vignettes and data sources were integrated after separate analysis. The survey was completed by 188 respondents (completion rate 69%) and 6 focus groups were conducted with 20 international experts. Prevention of mortality was the most important goal of primary treatment. Goals of secondary treatment were to promote tissue healing, return to oral feeding and safe hospital discharge. There was substantial variation in the preferred treatment principles (e.g. drainage or defect closure) and modalities (e.g. stent or endoVAC) within different presentations of AL. Patients with local symptoms were treated by supportive means only or by non-surgical drainage and/or defect closure. Drainage was routinely performed in patients with intrathoracic collections and often combined with defect closure. Patients with conduit necrosis were predominantly treated by resection and reconstruction of the anastomosis or by esophageal diversion. This mixed-methods study shows that overall treatment strategies for AL are determined by vitality of the conduit and presence of intrathoracic collections. There is large variation in preferred treatment principles and modalities. Future research may investigate optimal treatment for specific AL presentations and aim to develop consensus-based treatment guidelines for AL after esophagectomy.

Predicting mortality in patients with anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: development of a prediction model using data from the TENTACLE-Esophagus study

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common but severe complication after esophagectomy, and over 10% of patients with AL suffer mortality. Different prognostic factors in patients with AL are known, but a tool to predict mortality after AL is lacking. This study aimed to develop a prediction model for postoperative mortality in patients with AL after esophagectomy. TENTACLE-Esophagus is an international retrospective cohort study, which included 1509 patients with AL after esophagectomy. The primary outcome was 90-day postoperative mortality. Previously identified prognostic factors for mortality were selected as predictors: patient-related (e.g. comorbidity, performance status) and leak-related predictors (e.g. leucocyte count, overall gastric conduit condition). The prediction model was developed using multivariable logistic regression and validated internally using bootstrapping. Among the 1509 patients with AL, 90-day mortality was 11.7%. Sixteen predictors were included in the prediction model. The model showed good performance after internal validation: the c-index was 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.75-0.83). Predictions for mortality by the internally validated model aligned well with observed 90-day mortality rates. The prediction model was incorporated in an online tool for individual use and can be found at: https://www.tentaclestudy.com/prediction-model. The developed prediction model combines patient-related and leak-related factors to accurately predict postoperative mortality in patients with AL after esophagectomy. The model is useful for clinicians during counselling of patients and their families and may aid identification of high-risk patients at diagnosis of AL. In the future, the tool may guide clinical decision-making; however, external validation of the tool is warranted.

Implementation of the Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group definitions: the benefits of speaking the same language

In 2015 the Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group (ECCG) reported consensus definitions for complications after esophagectomy. This aimed to reduce variation in complication reporting, attributed to heterogeneous definitions. This systematic review aimed to describe the implementation of this definition set, including the effect on complication frequency and variation. A systematic literature review was performed, identifying all observational and randomized studies reporting complication frequencies after esophagectomy since the ECCG publication. Recruitment periods before and subsequent to the index ECCG publication date were included. Coefficients of variance were calculated to assess outcome heterogeneity. Of 144 studies which met inclusion criteria, 70 (48.6%) used ECCG definitions. The median number of separately reported complication types was five per study; only one study reported all ECCG complications. The coefficients of variance of the reported frequencies of eight of the 10 most common complications were reduced in studies which used the ECCG definitions compared with those that did not (P = 0.036). Among ECCG studies, the frequencies of postoperative pneumothorax, reintubation, and pulmonary emboli were significantly reduced in 2020-2021, compared with 2015-2019 (P = 0.006, 0.034, and 0.037 respectively). The ECCG definition set has reduced variation in esophagectomy morbidity reporting. This adds greater confidence to the observed gradual improvement in outcomes with time, and its ongoing use and wider dissemination should be encouraged. However, only a handful of outcomes are widely reported, and only rarely is it used in its entirety.

Adequate Management of Postoperative Complications after Esophagectomy: A Cornerstone for a Positive Outcome

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy for cancer is one of the most complex procedures in visceral surgery. Postoperative complications negatively affect the patient's overall survival. They are not influenced by the histology type (adenocarcinoma (AC)/squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)), or the surgical approach (open, laparoscopic, or robotic-assisted). Among those dreadful complications are anastomotic leak (AL), esophago-respiratory fistula (ERF), and chylothorax (CT).

METHODS

In this review, we summarize the methods to avoid these complications, the diagnostic approach, and new therapeutic strategies.

RESULTS

In the last 20 years, both centralization of the medical care, and the development of endoscopy and radiology have positively influenced the management of postoperative complications. For the purpose of their prevention, perioperative measures have been applied. The treatment includes conservative, endoscopic, and surgical approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-esophagectomy complications are common. Prevention measures should be known. Early recognition and adequate treatment of these complications save lives and lead to better outcomes.

Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak in patients after oesophagectomy: the SEAL score

Background

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common but severe complication after oesophagectomy. It is unknown how to determine the severity of AL objectively at diagnosis. Determining leak severity may guide treatment decisions and improve future research. This study aimed to identify leak-related prognostic factors for mortality, and to develop a Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak (SEAL) score.

Methods

This international, retrospective cohort study in 71 centres worldwide included patients with AL after oesophagectomy between 2011 and 2019. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. Leak-related prognostic factors were identified after adjusting for confounders and were included in multivariable logistic regression to develop the SEAL score. Four classes of leak severity (mild, moderate, severe, and critical) were defined based on the risk of 90-day mortality, and the score was validated internally.

Results

Some 1509 patients with AL were included and the 90-day mortality rate was 11.7 per cent. Twelve leak-related prognostic factors were included in the SEAL score. The score showed good calibration and discrimination (c-index 0.77, 95 per cent c.i. 0.73 to 0.81). Higher classes of leak severity graded by the SEAL score were associated with a significant increase in duration of ICU stay, healing time, Comprehensive Complication Index score, and Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group classification.

Conclusion

The SEAL score grades leak severity into four classes by combining 12 leak-related predictors and can be used to the assess severity of AL after oesophagectomy.

Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak in patients after oesophagectomy: the SEAL score

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common but severe complication after oesophagectomy. It is unknown how to determine the severity of AL objectively at diagnosis. Determining leak severity may guide treatment decisions and improve future research. This study aimed to identify leak-related prognostic factors for mortality, and to develop a Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak (SEAL) score.

METHODS

This international, retrospective cohort study in 71 centres worldwide included patients with AL after oesophagectomy between 2011 and 2019. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. Leak-related prognostic factors were identified after adjusting for confounders and were included in multivariable logistic regression to develop the SEAL score. Four classes of leak severity (mild, moderate, severe, and critical) were defined based on the risk of 90-day mortality, and the score was validated internally.

RESULTS

Some 1509 patients with AL were included and the 90-day mortality rate was 11.7 per cent. Twelve leak-related prognostic factors were included in the SEAL score. The score showed good calibration and discrimination (c-index 0.77, 95 per cent c.i. 0.73 to 0.81). Higher classes of leak severity graded by the SEAL score were associated with a significant increase in duration of ICU stay, healing time, Comprehensive Complication Index score, and Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group classification.

CONCLUSION

The SEAL score grades leak severity into four classes by combining 12 leak-related predictors and can be used to the assess severity of AL after oesophagectomy.

A New Risk Factor for Cervical Anastomotic Leakage-Role of The Relative Gastric Length in the Surgical Treatment of Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Blood supply is especially weak near the gastric fundus. Making the anastomosis in this area would increase the risk of anastomotic leakage (AL). In cervical anastomosis, the gastric conduit needs to travel through the thorax. Therefore, the relative length between the stomach and the thorax is an essential factor in deciding if the poorly supplied area could be removed. This study was to explore if a small relative gastric length was a risk of cervical AL. If all other conditions are equal, could intrathoracic anastomosis be a better choice?

METHODS

Patients who underwent esophagectomy with a preoperative barium swallow in West China Hospital between 2014 and 2017 were included. The length of the greater curvature and the thorax were obtained from the barium esophagogram. The ratio between the length of the greater curvature and the thorax was the relative gastric length calculated from the greater curvature (RGL-G).

RESULTS

A total of 782 patients were enrolled in the final analysis. The cervical AL group had a significantly higher ratio of patients with an RGL-G less than 1.3 (26.7% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.003). The multivariate logistic regression proved that RGL-G less than 1.3 was a risk factor for cervical anastomotic leakage (p = 0.012). Correspondingly, RGL-G less than 1.3 was not a risk factor (6.3% vs. 14.3%, p = 0.289) in the intrathoracic anastomosis group.

CONCLUSIONS

RGL-G less than 1.3 was a new risk factor for cervical AL, but it would not be a problem for intrathoracic anastomosis.

Rates of Anastomotic Complications and Their Management Following Esophagectomy: Results of the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA)

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to characterize rates and management of anastomotic leak (AL) and conduit necrosis (CN) after esophagectomy in an international cohort.

BACKGROUND

Outcomes in patients with anastomotic complications of esophagectomy are currently uncertain. Optimum strategies to manage AL/CN are unknown, and have not been assessed in an international cohort.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter cohort study included patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between April 2018 and December 2018 (with 90 days of follow-up). The primary outcomes were AL and CN, as defined by the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group. The secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality and successful AL/CN management, defined as patients being alive at 90 day postoperatively, and requiring no further AL/CN treatment.

RESULTS

This study included 2247 esophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. The AL rate was 14.2% (n = 319) and CN rate was 2.7% (n = 60). The overall 90-day mortality rate for patients with AL was 11.3%, and increased significantly with severity of AL (Type 1: 3.2% vs. Type 2: 13.2% vs. Type 3: 24.7%, P < 0.001); a similar trend was observed for CN. Of the 329 patients with AL/CN, primary management was successful in 69.6% of cases. Subsequent rounds of management lead to an increase in the rate of successful treatment, with cumulative success rates of 85.4% and 88.1% after secondary and tertiary management, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patient outcomes worsen significantly with increasing AL and CN severity. Reintervention after failed primary anastomotic complication management can be successful, hence surgeons should not be deterred from trying alternative management strategies.

The impact of cervical anastomotic leak after esophagectomy on long-term survival of patients with esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak is a major complication after esophagectomy. There is a paucity of data on long-term oncological outcomes of cervical anastomotic leak after esophagectomy for cancer. We evaluated the impact of such a leak on postoperative outcomes as well as on long-term oncological outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy with a cervical esophagogastric anastomosis between 2010 and 2017. Patients were divided into 3 groups: patients with no anastomotic leak; patients with nonsevere (type 1 & 2) leak, and patients with severe (type 3) leak. A comparison of postoperative and long-term oncological outcomes was made between the groups.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eight patients were included in this study. Thirty-two (15%) patients had cervical anastomotic leak, of which 20 (63%) had type 1 and 2 (nonsevere) leak, and 12 (37%) had type 3 (severe) leak. Overall, 30-day mortality rate was 7%. Mortality rate was 4% in patients without leak, 15% in patients with nonsevere leak, and 25% in patients with severe anastomotic leak (P = .007). Overall median survival was 42 months. Patients with severe leak had poorer overall survival compared to patients with nonsevere and no anastomotic leak (6, 38, and 39 months, respectively, P = .011). There was no difference in disease-free survival of patients with or without anastomotic leak.

CONCLUSION

Leakage from cervical anastomosis after esophagectomy had no impact on disease-free survival of patients with esophageal cancer. Severe anastomotic leak was associated with lower overall survival, probably due to a high rate of postoperative mortality.

Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer Performed During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Delay in time to esophagectomy for esophageal cancer has been shown to have worse peri-operative and long-term outcomes. We hypothesized that COVID-19 would cause a delay to surgery, with worse perioperative outcomes, compared to standard operations. All esophagectomies for esophageal cancer at a single institution from March-June 2020, COVID-19 group, and from 2019 were reviewed and peri-operative details were compared between groups. Ninety-six esophagectomies were performed in 2019 vs 37 during March-June 2020 (COVID-19 group). No differences between groups were found for preoperative comorbidities. Wait-time to surgery from final neoadjuvant treatment was similar, median 50 days in 2019 vs 53 days during COVID-19 p = 0.601. There was no increased upstaging, from clinical stage to pathologic stage, 9.4% in 2019 vs 7.5% in COVID-19 p = 0.841. Fewer overall complications occurred during COVID-19 vs 2019, 43.2% vs 64.6% p = 0.031, but complications were similar by specific grades. Readmission rates were not statistically different during COVID-19 than 2019, 16.2% vs 10.4% p = 0.38. No peri-operative mortalities or COVID-19 infections were seen in the COVID-19 group. Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer was not associated with worse outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic with minimal risk of infection when careful COVID-19 guidelines are followed. Prioritization is recommended to ensure no delays to surgery.

Effect of anastomotic leaks on long-term survival after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Long-term survival after curative surgery for oesophageal cancer surgery remains poor, and the prognostic impact of anastomotic leak (AL) remains unknown. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the impact of AL on long-term survival.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search for articles was performed for studies published between 2001 and 2020 evaluating the long-term oncological impact of AL. Meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model to compute hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, yielding a total of 9885 patients. Long-term survival was significantly reduced after AL (HR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.33-2.43). AL was associated with significantly reduced overall survival in studies within hospital volume Quintile 1 (HR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.12-1.63) and Quintile 2 (HR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.35-2.47). However, no significant association was found for studies within Quintile 3 (HR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.85-5.88), Quintile 4 (HR: 2.59, 95% CI: 0.67-10.07), and Quintile 5 (HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.92-1.81). AL was significantly associated with poor long-term survival in patients with associated overall Clavien Dindo Grades 1-5 (HR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.31-3.59) and severe Clavien Dindo Grades 3-5 (HR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.14-1.78) complications.

CONCLUSIONS

AL has a negative prognostic impact on long-term survival after restorative resection of oesophageal cancers, particularly in low-volume centers. Future efforts must be focused on strategies to minimize the septic and immunological response to AL with early recognition and treatment thus reducing the impact on long-term survival.

Esophageal cancer surgery: review of complications and their management

Esophagectomy, even with the progress in surgical technique and perioperative management, is a highly specialized surgery, associated with a high rate of complications. Early recognition and adequate treatment should be a standard of care for the most common postoperative complications: anastomotic leakage, pneumonia, atrial fibrillation, chylothorax, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Recent progress in endoscopy with vacuum and stent placement, or in radiology with embolization, has changed the management of these complications. The success of nonoperative treatments should be frequently reassessed and reoperation must be proposed in case of failure. We have summarized the clinical signs, diagnostic process, and management of the frequent complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Size of the thoracic inlet predicts cervical anastomotic leak after retrosternal reconstruction after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Although an anastomotic leak after esophagectomy is one of the most common postoperative complications, it is not well understood whether specific anatomic factors of the different route of reconstruction can predispose to the development of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. This study aimed to clarify whether various factors related to the size of the thoracic inlet are independent predictors of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy.

METHODS

We reviewed 248 patients who underwent esophagectomy with retrosternal reconstruction of the gastric conduit between January 2013 and March 2019. Various factors related to the size of the thoracic inlet were measured using computed tomography. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the association between various measurements and anastomotic leak.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leak occurred in 38 patients (15.3%). On univariate analysis, the thickness of the sternum, the thickness of the clavicle, the sternum-trachea distance, the ratio of the sternum-trachea distance/sternum-vertebral body distance, sex, body mass index, and method of anastomosis were statistically significantly associated with anastomotic leak. On multivariate analysis, the ratio of the sternum-trachea distance/sternum-vertebral body distance and the method of anastomosis were the independent risk factors for anastomotic leak.

CONCLUSION

The ratio of the sternum-trachea distance/sternum-vertebral body distance is associated with cervical anastomotic leak after retrosternal gastric conduit reconstruction after esophagectomy. Measurement of the thoracic inlet space may contribute to preoperative planning, such as for the route of the conduit for reconstruction and anastomotic site.

Obesity is Associated with Significantly More Anastomotic Leaks After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A NSQIP Database Study

BACKGROUND

This study assessed the association between obesity status and postoperative outcomes for patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE) or transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) via an open or minimally invasive (MIE) surgical approach.

METHODS

The 2016-2018 national surgical quality improvement program esophagectomy-targeted database was used to identify adult patients who underwent TTE or THE, with stratification of patients by obesity status and surgical approach. Using a multivariable regression model for each outcome, the study evaluated whether the adjusted difference between obese and non-obese patients varied between the open and MIE approaches.

RESULTS

In this study, 1260 patients underwent TTE (28.1% obese; 51.7% MIE), and 386 patients underwent THE (29.3% obese; 43.0% MIE). The obese patients in the TTE cohort who underwent MIE had 3.4 times higher odds of failing to wean from mechanical ventilation within 48 h (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-6.4), 1.7 times greater odds of returning to the operating room (95% CI 1.1- 3.0), 2.4 times greater odds of having an index hospital stay longer than 30 days, (95% CI 1.0-6.0), and 2.5 times greater odds of experiencing a grade 3 anastomotic leak (95% CI 1.3-4.9). No differences between obese and non-obese patients were observed among those who underwent TTE via an open approach or THE.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings showed that obese patients undergoing TTE via an MIE approach had greater odds of failing to wean from mechanical ventilation within 48 h, returning to the operating room, having an index hospital stay longer than 30 days, and having a grade 3 anastomotic leak. These results are in contrast to the previously published literature and require replication as additional data become available.

Risk factors and outcomes associated with anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anastomotic leaks (AL) are a major complication after esophagectomy. This meta-analysis aimed to determine identify risks factors for AL (preoperative, intra-operative, and post-operative factors) and assess the consequences to outcome on patients who developed an AL. This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines, and eligible studies were identified through a search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to 31 December 2018. A meta-analysis was conducted with the use of random-effects modeling and prospectively registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration CRD42018130732). This review identified 174 studies reporting outcomes of 74,226 patients undergoing esophagectomy. The overall pooled AL rates were 11%, ranging from 0 to 49% in individual studies. Majority of studies were from Asia (n = 79). In pooled analyses, 23 factors were associated with AL (17 preoperative and six intraoperative). AL were associated with adverse outcomes including pulmonary (OR: 4.54, CI95%: 2.99-6.89, P < 0.001) and cardiac complications (OR: 2.44, CI95%: 1.77-3.37, P < 0.001), prolonged hospital stay (mean difference: 15 days, CI95%: 10-21 days, P < 0.001), and in-hospital mortality (OR: 5.91, CI95%: 1.41-24.79, P = 0.015). AL are a major complication following esophagectomy accounting for major morbidity and mortality. This meta-analysis identified modifiable risk factors for AL, which can be a target for interventions to reduce AL rates. Furthermore, identification of both modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors will facilitate risk stratification and prediction of AL enabling better perioperative planning, patient counseling, and informed consent.

Anastomotic Leak Does Not Impact on Long-Term Outcomes in Esophageal Cancer Patients

Background

Esophagectomy is a technically demanding procedure associated with high levels of morbidity. Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common complication with potentially major ramifications for patients. It has also been associated with poorer long-term overall survival (OS) and disease recurrence.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine whether AL contributes to poor OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients with esophageal cancer.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing a two-stage, two-field transthoracic esophagectomy from a single high-volume unit between 1997 and 2016 were evaluated. Clinicopathologic characteristics, along with oncological and postoperative outcomes, were stratified by no AL versus non-severe leak (NSL) versus severe esophageal AL (SEAL). SEAL was defined as ALs associated with Clavien–Dindo grade III/IV complications.

Results

This study included 1063 patients, of whom 8% (87/1063) developed AL; 45% of those who developed AL were SEALs (39/87). SEAL was associated with a prolonged critical care stay (median 8 vs. 3 vs. 2 days; p < 0.001) and prolonged hospital stay (median 43 vs. 27 vs. 15 days; p < 0.001) compared with NSL or no AL. There were no significant differences in number of lymph nodes harvested and rates of R1 resection between groups. OS and RFS were not affected by either NSL or SEAL, and Cox multivariate regression showed NSL and SEAL were not independently associated with OS and RFS. Sensitivity analysis in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy demonstrated similar findings.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate that AL leads to prolonged critical care and in-hospital length of stay; however, contrary to previous reports, our results do not compromise long-term outcomes and are unlikely to have a detrimental oncological impact.