Video. Surgical optimisation of the gastric conduit for minimally invasive oesophagectomy

Anastomotic Leak After Esophagectomy: Modern Approaches to Prevention and Diagnosis

Anastomotic leak (AL) remains one of the most serious complications following esophagectomy, contributing to significant morbidity, prolonged hospital stays, and increased mortality. Despite advancements in surgical techniques and perioperative care, AL continues to challenge surgeons and negatively impact patient outcomes. Various factors contribute to its development, including patient-specific comorbidities, tumor characteristics, anastomotic technique, conduit perfusion, and perioperative management. Prevention strategies have evolved with the integration of intraoperative techniques such as fluorescence-guided perfusion assessment, omental reinforcement, and meticulous surgical handling of the gastric conduit. Emerging technologies, including endoluminal vacuum therapy (EVT) and multimodal perioperative protocols, have demonstrated potential in reducing leak incidence and improving management. Diagnosing AL remains complex due to its variable presentation, necessitating a combination of clinical evaluation, inflammatory markers, imaging studies, and endoscopic assessments. While routine postoperative imaging has shown limited sensitivity, on-demand CT and endoscopic evaluations play a crucial role in early detection and intervention. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the risk factors, prevention strategies, and diagnostic modalities for AL after esophagectomy, incorporating recent advancements and emerging technologies.

Survival outcomes fifteen years after minimally invasive esophagectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIO) offers a less traumatic resection for cancer patients resulting in improved quality of life. Concerns about the oncological efficacy of the procedure and potential impact on survival may have limited its wider adoption. This study reports survival outcomes fifteen years after patients underwent a total MIO for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

A single-centre analysis of survival outcomes was conducted on all patients who underwent MIO between 2004 and 2010 and had completed at least 15-years follow-up. Actual overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier method. The pattern of association of patient factors with survival was assessed with the Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 121 patients underwent resection, with 4 (3.3%) in-patient deaths. With a median follow-up time of 15.2 years, the median OS was 41 months. At 15-years there were 20 survivors (17.1%), with numbers at 10 and 5 years being 34 (29.1%) and 45 (38.5%) respectively. Median DFS was 27 months, with 19 (16.2%) patient disease free at 15 years, and 32 (27.4%) and 38 (32.5%) at 10 and 5 years respectively. Predictors of poor survival were the intracorporeal fashioning of the gastric conduit, perioperative blood transfusions, advanced disease stage and recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Long term survival outcomes following MIO support its increasing recognition as the standard of care as for curative resection in esophageal cancer.

Short-term Outcomes of Different Techniques for Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Before Esophagectomy: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ischemia at the anastomotic site plays a critical role determinant in the development of anastomosis-related complications after esophagectomy. Gastric ischemic conditioning (GIC) before esophagectomy has been described to improve the vascular perfusion at the tip of the gastric conduit with a potential effect on anastomotic leak (AL) and stenosis (AS) risk minimization. Laparoscopic (LapGIC) and angioembolization (AngioGIC) techniques have been reported.

PURPOSE

Compare short-term outcomes among different GIC techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analysis. One-step esophagectomy (noGIC), LapGIC, and AngioGIC were compared. Primary outcomes were AL, AS, and gastric conduit necrosis (GCN). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were used to assess relative inference.

RESULTS

Overall, 1760 patients (14 studies) were included. Of those, 1028 patients (58.4%) underwent noGIC, 593 (33.6%) LapGIC, and 139 (8%) AngioGIC. AL was reduced for LapGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.68; 95% CrI 0.47-0.98) and AngioGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.52; 95% CrI 0.31-0.93). Similarly, AS was reduced for LapGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.32; 95% CrI 0.12-0.68) and AngioGIC versus noGIC (RR=1.30; 95% CrI 0.65-2.46). The indirect comparison, assessed with the network methodology, did not show any differences for LapGIC versus AngioGIC in terms of postoperative AL and AS risk. No differences were found for GCN, pulmonary complications, overall complications, hospital length of stay, and 30-day mortality among different treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to noGIC, both LapGIC and AngioGIC before esophagectomy seem equivalent and associated with a reduced risk for postoperative AL and AS.

Effect of gastric ischemic conditioning prior to esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Ischemia at the anastomotic site is thought to be a protagonist in the development of anastomosis-related complications while different strategies to overcome this problem have been reported. Gastric ischemic conditioning (GIC) prior to esophagectomy has been described with this intent. Evaluate the effect of GIC on anastomotic complications after esophagectomy. Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed were investigated up to March 31st, 2023. We considered articles that appraised short-term outcomes after GIC vs. no GIC in patients undergoing esophagectomy. Anastomotic leak (AL), anastomotic stricture (AS), and gastric conduit necrosis (GCN) were primary outcomes. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to calculate related inference. Fourteen studies (1760 patients) were included. Of those, 732 (41.6%) underwent GIC, while 1028 (58.4%) underwent one-step esophagectomy. Compared with no GIC, GIC was related to a reduced RR for AL (R RR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.47-0.86; p < 0.01) and AS (RR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.29-0.91; p = 0.02), whereas no differences were found for GCN (RR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.19-1.61; p = 0.28). Postoperative pneumonia (RR = 1.09; p = 0.99), overall complications (RR = 0.87; p = 0.19), operative time (SMD - 0.58; p = 0.07), hospital stay (SMD 0.66; p = 0.09), and 30-day mortality (RR = 0.69; p = 0.22) were comparable. GIC prior to esophagectomy seems associated with a reduced risk for AL and AS. Further studies are necessary to identify the subset of patients who can benefit from this procedure, the optimal technique, and the timing of GIC prior to esophagectomy.

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.

A pilot randomized controlled trial on the utility of gastric conditioning in the prevention of esophagogastric anastomotic leak after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. The APIL_2013 Trial

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Preoperative gastric conditioning (GC) improves blood perfusion of the gastroplasty, one of the most important factors for anastomotic viability. This pilot randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the feasibility of GC before oesophageal surgery in patients with oesophageal cancer or Siewert I-II esophagogastric junction cancer, who required an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a randomized (1:1), open-label, single-centre, controlled, parallel-group, pilot clinical trial. Two study groups: 1) GC-group: patients who underwent an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and GC before surgery; 2) Surgery alone (SA)-group: patients who underwent only Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Feasibility was assessed by means of the number of patients in whom a GC was performed, and the cumulative incidence of postoperative AL. Secondary endpoints were conduit necrosis (CN), hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and anastomotic stricture.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2018, 38 patients were randomized and analysed: 20 to GC-group and 18 to SA-group. 17 GCs (85%) were successfully performed, right gastric artery occlusion failed in three patients. Morbidity after GC occurred in 5/22 patients (all Clavien-Dindo ≤ IIIa). The cumulative incidence of AL was 15.0% (3/20, 95%CI: 5.2-36.0%) in GC-group and 33.3% (6/18, 95%CI: 16.3-56.3%) in SA-group, p-value: 0.184. CN: 0/20 vs. 1/18 (p-value: 0.474); surgical morbidity (Clavien-Dindo III-V): 7/20 vs. 12/18 (p-value: 0.070); hospital stay (median [range] days): 12 [9-45] vs. 27.5 [10-166] (p-value: 0.067). When only successful GCs (three arteries) were included for analysis, ischemia-related gastric conduit failure (AL and CN) was lower in the GC group (p-value: 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative arteriographic GC before Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is a feasible and safe procedure and seems it may reduce AL in patients with oesophageal cancer or Siewert I-II esophagogastric junction cancer.

Gastric ischemic conditioning prior to esophagectomy reduces anastomotic leaks and strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastric ischemic conditioning (GIC) is a strategy to promote neovascularization of the gastric conduit to reduce the risk of anastomotic complications following esophagectomy. Despite a number of studies and reviews published on the concept of ischemic conditioning, there remains no clear consensus regarding its utility. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the impact of GIC, particularly on anastomotic leaks, conduit ischemia, and strictures.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was performed on February 5th, 2020 by a university librarian after selection of key search terms with the research team. Inclusion criteria included human participants undergoing esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction, age ≥ 18, N ≥ 5, and GIC performed prior to esophagectomy. Our primary outcome of interest was anastomotic leaks. Our secondary outcome was gastric conduit ischemia, anastomotic strictures, and overall survival. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.4.1 using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 1712 preliminary studies were identified and 23 studies included for final review. GIC was performed in 1178 (53.5%) patients. Meta-analysis revealed reduced odds of anastomotic leaks (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.46-0.97; I² = 5%; p = 0.03) and anastomotic strictures (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.29-0.80; I² = 65%; p = 0.005). Meta-analysis revealed no difference in odds of conduit ischemia (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.13-1.23; I² = 0%; p = 0.11) and no difference in odds of overall survival (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.29-1.02; I² = 22%; p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

GIC is associated with reduced odds of anastomotic leaks and anastomotic strictures and may decrease morbidity in patients undergoing esophagectomy. Further prospective randomized trials are needed to better identify the optimal patient population, timing, and techniques used to best achieve GIC.

Staged esophagectomy: surgical legacy or a bailout option?

Staged esophagectomy was developed in the mid-twentieth century in an attempt to reduce high rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Nowadays, the operation has almost been abandoned due to its significant disadvantages, especially the need for multiple surgeries, inability of patients to feed between operations, and morbidity of esophageal stoma. However, staged esophagectomy is still occasionally useful for very high-risk patients and in particular cases, for example multiple cancers of the aerodigestive tract and emergent esophagectomy. Staged esophagectomy is based on the division of surgical stress into two operations, which gives the patient time to recover before final restoration. Gastric tube ischemic preparation may be a more important mechanism in staged esophagectomy. This approach may survive and expand with the application of ischemic gastric pre-conditioning through embolization or laparoscopic ligation of the gastric arteries, which is a less explored and promising technique.

Gastric ischemic preconditioning may reduce the incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage after οesophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy is a severe and life-threatening complication. Gastric ischemic preconditioning is a strategy for the improvement of anastomotic healing. Aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the impact of gastric ischemic preconditioning on postoperative morbidity. A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies comparing patients undergoing gastric ischemic preconditioning before esophagectomy with nonpreconditioned patients. Meta-analysis was conducted for the overall incidence of anastomotic leakage, severe anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, postoperative morbidity, and mortality. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed concerning preconditioning technique, the interval between preconditioning and surgery and the extent of preconditioning. Fifteen cohort studies were identified. Gastric preconditioning was associated with reduced overall incidence of anastomotic leakage (OR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-1.0; P = 0.050) and severe anastomotic leakage (OR 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14-0.50; P < 0.010), but not with anastomotic stricture (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.38 to 3.66; P = 0.780), major postoperative morbidity (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.36; P = 0.940) or mortality (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.39 to 1,23; P = 0.210). Subgroup analyses did not identify any differences between embolization and ligation while increasing the interval between preconditioning and esophagectomy as well as the extent of preconditioning might be beneficial. Gastric ischemic preconditioning may be associated with a reduced incidence of overall and severe anastomotic leakage. Randomized studies are necessary to further evaluate its impact on leakage, refine the technique and define patient populations that will benefit the most.

Critical appraisal of gastric conduit ischaemic conditioning (GIC) prior to oesophagectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Anastomotic leaks remain a major complication following oesophagectomy, accounting for high morbidity and mortality. Recently, gastric ischaemic conditioning (GIC) has been proposed to improve anastomotic integrity through neovascularisation of the gastric conduit. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to determine the impact of GIC on postoperative outcomes following oesophagectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies reporting GIC for any indication of oesophageal resection up to April 25, 2019. The primary outcome was anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes were conduit necrosis, anastomotic strictures, overall and major complications or in-hospital mortality. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects modelling.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies reported on GIC, of which 13 were comparative studies. GIC was performed through ligation in 13 studies and embolisation in six studies. GIC did not appear to reduce anastomotic leakages (OR 0.80, CI_95: 0.51-1.24, p = 0.3), anastomotic strictures (OR 0.75, CI_95: 0.35-1.60, p = 0.5), overall complications (OR 1.02, CI_95: 0.48-2.16, p = 0.9), major complications (OR 1.06, CI_95: 0.53-2.11, p = 0.9), or in-hospital mortality (OR 0.70, CI_95: 0.32-1.53, p = 0.4). However, GIC was associated with reduced rates of conduit necrosis (OR 0.30, CI_95: 0.11-0.77, p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

GIC does not appear to reduce overall rates of anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy but seems to reduce severity of leakages. More in depth studies are recommended.

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.

Ischaemic conditioning of the stomach previous to esophageal surgery

A gastric conduit is most frequently used for reconstruction in oesophageal surgery, and ischemia of the conduit is the most fragile aspect of the esophagogastric anastomosis with as consequence the anastomotic leakage. In order to avoid it, the concept of ischaemic conditioning of the stomach previous to surgery has been designed. The basis of ischemic conditioning is that interrupting vascularization of the stomach before making the anastomosis eases the gastric fundus adaptation to ischemic conditions. It consists of the interruption of the principal feeding arteries of the stomach (except the right gastroepiploic artery) weeks before esophagectomy. Previously published literature contemplates two different techniques: angiographic embolization or laparoscopic ligation or division of vessels. In this study, the anatomic and physio-pathologic background of ischemic preconditioning is described and the published current evidence is reviewed.

Conduit necrosis following esophagectomy: An up-to-date literature review

Esophageal conduit ischaemia and necrosis is an uncommon but devastating complication of esophagectomy and remains one of the most challenging issues in surgical practice. The incidence, time interval to develop symptoms, and clinical presentation are highly variable with no predictable pattern. Evidence comes from case reports and case series rather than randomized controlled trials. We describe the issues surrounding conduit necrosis affecting the stomach, jejunum and colon as an esophageal replacement and the advantages, disadvantages and challenges of each type of reconstruction. Diagnosis is challenging for the most experienced surgeon. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and computed tomography thorax with both oral and intravenous contrast is the gold standard. Management, either conservative or interventional is also a difficult decision. Management options include conservative treatment and more aggressive treatments such as stent insertion, surgical debridement and repair of the esophagus using jejunum, colon or a musculocutaneous flap. In spite of recent advances in surgical techniques, there is no reliable strategy to manage esophageal conduit necrosis. Our review covers the pathophysiology and clinical significance of esophageal necrosis while highlighting current techniques of prevention, diagnosis and treatment of this life-threatening condition.

Anastomotic leakage after intrathoracic versus cervical oesophagogastric anastomosis for oesophageal carcinoma in Chinese population: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the characteristics and predictors for anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy for oesophageal carcinoma from the perspective of anastomotic level.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

A single tertiary medical centre in China.

PARTICIPANTS

From January 2010 to December 2016, all patients with oesophageal cancer of the distal oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction undergoing elective oesophagectomy with a curative intent for oesophageal carcinoma with intrathoracic oesophagogastric anastomosis (IOA) versus cervical oesophagogastric anastomosis (COA) were included. We investigated anastomotic level and perioperative confounding factors as potential risk factors for postoperative leakage by univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the odds of anastomotic leakage by different confounding factors. Secondary outcome was the association of IOA versus COA with other postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 458 patients included, 126 underwent cervical anastomosis and 332 underwent intrathoracic anastomosis. Anastomotic leakage developed in 55 patients (12.0%), with no statistical differences between COA and IOA (16.6% vs 10.2%; p=0.058). Multivariable analysis identified active diabetes mellitus (OR 2.001, p=0.047), surgical procedure (open: reference; minimally invasive: OR 1.770, p=0.049) and anastomotic method (semimechanical: reference; stapled: OR 1.821; handsewn: OR 2.271, p=0.048) rather than anastomotic level (IOA: reference; COA: OR 1.622, p=0.110) were independent predictors of leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical and anastomotic techniques rather than the level of anastomotic site were independent predictors of postoperative anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing oesophageal cancer surgery.

Does gastric conditioning decrease the incidence of cervical oesophagogastric anastomotic leakage?

INTRODUCTION

Oesophageal reconstruction by gastroplasty with cervical anastomosis has a higher incidence of dehiscence. The aim of the study is to analyse the incidence of anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing gastroplasty with cervical anastomosis following angiographic ischaemic conditioning of the gastric conduit.

METHODS

Prospective analysis of patients who underwent gastric conditioning two weeks prior to oesophageal reconstruction, from January 2001 to January 2014. The conditioning was performed by angiographic embolization of the left and right gastric artery, and splenic artery. The main variable analysed was the incidence of anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing gastroplasty with cervical anastomosis. Secondary variables analysed were the result of the conditioning, complications arising from that procedure and in the postoperative period, and mean length of postconditioning and postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

Gastric conditioning was indicated in 97 patients, with neoplasia being the most frequent aetiology motivating the oesophageal reconstruction (76%). 96 procedures were successfully carried out, arterial embolization was complete in 80 (83%). The morbidity rate was 13%, with no mortality. Postoperative morbidity was 45%; the most frequent complications associated with the surgery were respiratory problems. Six (7%) patients experienced cervical fistula, and all received conservative treatment. The rate of postoperative mortality was 7%.

CONCLUSIONS

In our serie the incidence of anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing gastroplasty with cervical anastomosis following angiographic ischaemic conditioning is 7%. Angiographic ischaemic conditioning is a procedure with acceptable morbidity.

Gastric Preconditioning in Advance of Esophageal Resection-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage is one of the most severe complications following esophageal resection. Among other strategies, gastric ischemic preconditioning has been proposed to improve anastomotic integrity. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate whether gastric preconditioning has influence on peri- or postoperative outcomes after esophageal resection.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies comparing gastric preconditioning with non-preconditioned patients for any indication of esophageal resection. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for main outcomes.

RESULTS

Gastric preconditioning did not reduce anastomotic leakages (OR 0.76; 95%-CI 0.51 to 1.13; p = 0.18), anastomotic strictures (OR 1.10; 95%-CI 0.58 to 2.10; p = 0.76;), major complications (OR 1.14; 95%-CI 0.60 to 2.14; p = 0.69), or in-hospital mortality (OR 0.62; 95%-CI 0.28 to 1.40; p = 0.25). However, preconditioning reduced the rate of severe leaks requiring reoperation (OR 0.20; 95%-CI 0.08 to 0.53; p = 0.001). Increasing the period between preconditioning and esophageal resection over 2 weeks did not reduce anastomotic leakage compared to shorter waiting times (OR 0.65; 95%-CI 0.38 to 1.13; p = 0.13).

CONCLUSION

With current evidence, gastric preconditioning does not seem to reduce overall rates of anastomotic leakage after esophageal resection but seems to reduce severity of leakages.

Ischemic Conditioning of the Stomach in the Prevention of Esophagogastric Anastomotic Leakage After Esophagectomy

Esophagectomy with esophagogastric anastomosis is a major procedure, and its most feared complication is anastomotic leakage. Ischemic conditioning of the stomach is a method used with the aim of reducing the risk of leakage. It consists of partial gastric devascularization through embolization or laparoscopy followed by esophagectomy and anastomosis at a second stage, thus providing the time for the gastric conduit to adapt to the acute ischemia at the time of its formation. This review analyzes the information from all currently available experimental and clinical studies with the purpose of assessing the current role of the technique and to provide future recommendations.

Conduit Vascular Evaluation is Associated with Reduction in Anastomotic Leak After Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak following esophagectomy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A major factor determining anastomotic success is an adequate blood supply to the conduit. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of intraoperative evaluation of the conduit's vascular supply on anastomotic failure after esophagectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 90 consecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction. A change in surgical practice occurred after 60 cases were completed, when we introduced the use of intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescence angiography and Doppler examination to evaluate blood supply and assist in construction of the conduit. The leak rates before and after implementation of conduit vascular evaluation were compared.

RESULTS

After the introduction of intraoperative vascular evaluation of the gastric conduit, we noted a dramatic decrease in the rate of anastomotic leak from 20 % in the first 60 patients to 0 % in the succeeding 30 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative vascular evaluation with indocyanine green fluorescence imaging and Doppler examination of the gastric conduit used to assist reconstruction after esophagectomy allows for enhanced construction of the conduit that maximizes blood supply to the anastomosis. This change in practice was associated with a significant reduction in anastomotic leak rate.

Technical factors that affect anastomotic integrity following esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to the significant contribution of anastomotic leak, with its disastrous consequences to patient morbidity and mortality, multiple parameters have been proposed and individually meta-analyzed for the formation of the ideal esophagogastric anastomosis following cancer resection. The purpose of this pooled analysis was to examine the main technical parameters that impact on anastomotic integrity.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, trial registries, and conference proceedings were searched. Technical factors evaluated included hand-sewn versus stapled esophagogastric anastomosis (EGA), cervical versus thoracic EGA, minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy, anterior versus posterior route of reconstruction and ischemic conditioning of the gastric conduit. The outcome of interest was the incidence of anastomotic leak, for which pooled odds ratios were calculated for each technical factor.

RESULTS

No significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic leak was demonstrated for the following technical factors: hand-sewn versus stapled EGA, minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy, anterior versus posterior route of reconstruction and ischemic conditioning of the gastric conduit. Four randomized, controlled trials comprising 298 patients were included that compared cervical and thoracic EGA. Anastomotic leak was seen more commonly in the cervical group (13.64 %) than in the thoracic group (2.96 %). Pooled analysis demonstrated a significantly increased incidence of anastomotic leak in the cervical group (pooled odds ratio = 4.73; 95 % CI 1.61-13.9; P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

A tailored surgical approach to the patient's physiology and esophageal cancer stage is the most important factor that influences anastomotic integrity after esophagectomy.

Fluoroscopically guided balloon dilation or temporary stent placement for patients with gastric conduit strictures after esophagectomy with esophagogastrostomy

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical features of patients with gastric conduit strictures after esophagectomy and to report our initial experience in the management of these strictures with fluoroscopically guided balloon dilation, temporary stent placement, or both.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 1996 to January 2012, 12 patients with gastric conduit stricture after esophagectomy underwent fluoroscopic balloon dilation, temporary stent placement, or both. Stent placement was indicated in patients who had gastro-respiratory fistulas or recurrent symptoms within 2 weeks of balloon dilation. Technical and clinical success, complications, and length of strictures were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean length of strictures in all patients was 49 mm (range, 21-76 mm). The strictures were accompanied by gastrorespiratory fistulas in four patients. Seven patients with gastric conduit strictures without fistulas underwent 23 balloon dilations. Five patients underwent stent placement owing to gastrorespiratory fistula formation (n = 4) and frequent recurrent symptoms after balloon dilation (n = 1). During a mean follow-up period of 8 months (range, 2-28 months), clinical success was achieved in 11 patients (91.6%) after a single balloon dilation (n = 1), multiple balloon dilations (n = 5), or stent placement (n = 5). Complications occurred in 3 of 10 patients (30%) after balloon dilation and in one of five patients (20%) after stent placement.

CONCLUSION

Gastric conduit strictures are characterized by their substantial length and tend to be accompanied by gastrorespiratory fistulas. Despite relatively high complication and recurrence rates, this study may offer a viable treatment of gastric conduit strictures by using fluoroscopically guided balloon dilation and stent placement.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy with extracorporeal gastric conduit creation--how I do it

Esophagectomy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates. In an attempt to improve these results, many groups have started applying minimally invasive techniques to esophagectomy for benign and malignant disease. A variety of minimally invasive approaches have been developed. At the Thomas Jefferson University, we have offered minimally invasive three-hole esophagectomy with extracorporeal gastric conduit creation since 2008. Herein we report our technique for the abdominal and cervical components of the procedure and briefly discuss the current literature and our short-term perioperative outcomes.