A new three-layer-funnel-shaped esophagogastric anastomosis for surgical treatment of esophageal carcinoma

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.

Asymptomatic anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy and gastric pull-up

AIM

To summarize our improvements to the surgical technique of esophagectomy and gastric pull-up and explore the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of asymptomatic anastomotic leakage following this surgical technique.

METHODS

Clinical data for 62 patients who underwent esophagectomy and gastric pull-up at Department of Thoracic Surgery, Tongji Hospital between February 2014 and January 2015 were retrospectively reviewed to analyze the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of asymptomatic anastomotic leakage following this surgical technique.

RESULTS

Seven (11.3%) patients developed anastomotic leakage, of whom five (8.1%) had asymptomatic anastomotic leakage and 2 had classical anastomotic leakage. The mean healing time of asymptomatic anastomotic leakage was 6.4 d, and that of classical anastomotic leakage was 14.5 d. All patients were followed for 6-12 mo, and no anastomotic stenosis was observed.

CONCLUSION

The presence of asymptomatic anastomotic leakage with faster healing time reflects the improvements of the surgical technique of esophagectomy and gastric pull-up.

Fluoroscopically guided three-tube insertion for the treatment of postoperative gastroesophageal anastomotic leakage

Objective

To retrospectively evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of three-tube insertion for the treatment of postoperative gastroesophageal anastomotic leakage (GEAL).

Materials and Methods

From January 2007 to January 2011, 28 cases of postoperative GEAL after an esophagectomy with intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomotic procedures for esophageal and cardiac carcinoma were treated by the insertion of three tubes under fluoroscopic guidance. The three tubes consisted of a drainage tube through the leak, a nasogastric decompression tube, and a nasojejunum feeding tube. The study population consisted of 28 patients (18 males, 10 females) ranging in their ages from 36 to 72 years (mean: 59 years). We evaluated the feasibility of three-tube insertion to facilitate leakage site closure, and the patients' nutritional benefit by checking their serum albumin levels between pre- and post-enteral feeding via the feeding tube.

Results

The three tubes were successfully placed under fluoroscopic guidance in all twenty-eight patients (100%). The procedure times for the three tube insertion ranged from 30 to 70 minutes (mean time: 45 minutes). In 27 of 28 patients (96%), leakage site closure after three-tube insertion was achieved, while it was not attained in one patient who received stent implantation as a substitute. All patients showed good tolerance of the three-tube insertion in the nasal cavity. The mean time needed for leakage treatment was 21 ± 3.5 days. The serum albumin level change was significant, increasing from pre-enteral feeding (2.5 ± 0.40 g/dL) to post-enteral feeding (3.7 ± 0.51 g/dL) via the feeding tube (p < 0.001). The duration of follow-up ranged from 7 to 60 months (mean: 28 months).

Conclusion

Based on the results of this study, the insertion of three tubes under fluoroscopic guidance is safe, and also provides effective relief from postesophagectomy GEAL. Moreover, our findings suggest that three-tube insertion may be used as the primary procedure to treat postoperative GEAL.

The safety and effectiveness of endoscopic and non-endoscopic approaches to the management of early esophageal cancer: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, management of early cancer (stages 0-IIA) has comprised esophagectomy, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Recent efforts to improve outcomes and minimize side-effects have focussed on minimally invasive, endoscopic treatments that remove lesions while sparing healthy tissue. This review assesses their safety and efficacy/effectiveness relative to traditional, non-endoscopic treatments for early esophageal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies was performed using Cochrane guidelines. Bibliographic databases searched to identify relevant English language studies published in the last 3 years included: PubMed (i.e., MEDLINE and additional sources), EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, the UK Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (NHS EED, DARE and HTA) databases, EconLit and Web of Science. Web sites of professional associations, relevant cancer organizations, clinical practice guidelines, and clinical trials were also searched. Two independent reviewers selected, critically appraised, and extracted information from studies.

RESULTS

The review included 75 studies spanning 3124 patients and 10 forms of treatment. Most studies were of short term duration and non-comparative. Adverse events reported across studies of endoscopic techniques were similar and less significant compared to those in the studies of non-endoscopic techniques. Complete response rates were slightly lower for photodynamic therapy (PDT) relative to the other endoscopic techniques, possibly due to differences in patient populations across studies. No studies compared overall or cause-specific survival in patients who received endoscopic treatments vs. those who received non-endoscopic treatments.

DISCUSSION

Based on findings from this review, there is no single "best practice" approach to the treatment of early esophageal cancer.

Anastomotic stricture complicating esophagectomy

Regardless of the definition, anastomotic strictures are a common complication after esophagectomy and adversely affect quality of life. They are best avoided by careful surgical technique that minimizes conduit ischemia during preparation, placement, and anastomosis. Anastomotic technique must assure an adequate anastomotic area. The Collard anastomosis, a significant advance in the construction of esophagogastric anastomoses, routinely assures adequate anastomotic area and thus assures fewer anastomotic strictures. The use of small-diameter (21-mm and 25-mm) circular staplers is discouraged, because they are unquestionably associated with the occurrence of major anastomotic strictures. Anastomotic leaks precede many anastomotic strictures, but strictures are not inevitable after leaks. Other variables are less reliably associated with anastomotic strictures. Treatment requires diagnosis and exclusion of recurrent cancer and other causes of stricture. Dilation is safe, but diligence with repeated sessions is necessary to restore swallowing. Reoperation is rarely required.

N/A

N/A