Post-esophagectomy tracheobronchoesophageal fistula: management and results of a tertiary referral center

Multicenter study on the incidence and treatment of mediastinal leaks after esophagectomy (MuMeLe 2)

BACKGROUND

Management of mediastinal anastomotic leaks (MALs) after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy includes conservative, endoscopic, or surgical management. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVAC) is becoming a routine approach for MALs, although the outcomes have not been defined. This study aimed to describe the incidence, treatment, and outcomes of MALs in patients who underwent esophagectomy in 3 Italian high-volume centers that routinely use EVAC for MAL.

METHODS

Patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy between September 2018 and March 2023 were included.

RESULTS

A total of 681 patients underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, of whom 88 had MAL. The MAL rates for open, minimally invasive, and robotic esophagectomies were 11.5%, 13.4%, and 14.8%, respectively. Global and specific 30- and 90-day mortality rates for MAL were 0.9% and 2.1% and 6.8% and 15.9%, respectively. Nonoperative management (NOM) as the primary treatment was chosen for 62 patients. EVAC was the most common NOM (62.9%), and the most common operative management (OM) was anastomotic redo (53.8%). Diversion was the OM for 7 patients, of whom 3 patients died. Primary treatment proved successful in 40 patients. Among them, EVAC alone was successful in 35.9% of patients. Globally, endoscopic treatment, including EVAC, was successful in 79.0% of NOM and 55.7% of MALs. NOM and OM were chosen as secondary treatments for 27 and 10 patients, respectively. Secondary treatment proved successful in 21 patients.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of MALs after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is approximately 13%. Endoscopic techniques have a success rate of almost 80%, with EVAC representing a significant part of this treatment process.

Root cause analysis of mortality after esophagectomy for cancer: a multicenter cohort study from the FREGAT database

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy is associated with significant mortality. A better understanding of the causes leading to death may help to reduce mortality. A root cause analysis of mortality after esophagectomy was performed.

METHODS

Root cause analysis was retrospectively applied by an independent expert panel of 4 upper gastrointestinal surgeons and 1 anesthesiologist-intensivist to patients included in the French national multicenter prospective cohort FREGAT between August 2014 and September 2019 who underwent an esophagectomy for cancer and died within 90 days of surgery. A cause-and-effect diagram was used to determine the root causes related to death. Death was classified as potentially preventable or non-preventable.

RESULTS

Among the 1,040 patients included in the FREGAT cohort, 70 (6.7%) patients (male: 81%, median age 68 [62-72] years) from 17 centers were included. Death was potentially preventable in 37 patients (53%). Root causes independently associated with preventable death were inappropriate indication (odds ratio 35.16 [2.50-494.39]; P = .008), patient characteristics (odds ratio 5.15 [1.19-22.35]; P = .029), unexpected intraoperative findings (odds ratio 18.99 [1.07-335.55]; P = .045), and delay in diagnosis of a complication (odds ratio 98.10 [6.24-1,541.04]; P = .001). Delay in treatment of a complication was found only in preventable deaths (28 [76%] vs 0; P < .001). National guidelines were less frequently followed (16 [43%] vs 22 [67%]; P = .050) in preventable deaths. The only independent risk factor of preventable death was center volume <26 esophagectomies per year (odds ratio 4.71 [1.55-14.33]; P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-half of deaths after esophagectomy were potentially preventable. Better patient selection, early diagnosis, and adequate management of complications through centralization could reduce mortality.

Surgical treatment of esophago-tracheobronchial fistulas after esophagectomy

The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical treatment of esophago-tracheobronchial fistulas (ETBFs) that occurred after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction in a tertiary referral center for esophageal surgery. All patients who underwent surgical repair for an ETBF after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction were included in a tertiary referral center. The primary outcome was successful recovery after surgical treatment for ETBF, defined as a patent airway at 90 days after the surgical fistula repair. Secondary outcomes were details on the clinical presentation, diagnostics, and postoperative course after fistula repair. Between 2007 and 2022, 14 patients who underwent surgical repair for an ETBF were included. Out of 14 patients, 9 had undergone esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis and 5 esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis after which 13 patients had developed anastomotic leakage. Surgical treatment consisted of thoracotomy to cover the defect with a pericardial patch and intercostal flap in 11 patients, a patch without interposition of healthy tissue in 1 patient, and fistula repair via cervical incision with only a pectoral muscle flap in 2 patients. After surgical treatment, 12 patients recovered (86%). Mortality occurred in two patients (14%) due to multiple organ failure. This study evaluated the techniques and outcomes of surgical repair of ETBFs following esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction in 14 patients. Treatment was successful in 12 patients (86%) and generally consisted of thoracotomy and coverage of the defect with a bovine pericardial patch followed by interposition with an intercostal muscle.

Duodenal diversion surgery in management of intractable tracheobroncho-gastric fistula after esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Tracheobroncho-gastric fistula (TGF), a rare but potentially fatal complication following esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction, has conventionally been treated with surgical repair and/or airway stenting. However, satisfactory therapeutic outcomes with these modalities have yet to be obtained because of difficulty in controlling persistent inflammation caused by digestive juice reflux.

CASE PRESENTATION

We adopted duodenal diversion (DD), a classic anti-reflux surgical method, as an additional option for TGF management and have experienced two cases undergoing DD surgery for post-esophagectomy TGF (all male, 76-77 years old). TGF was developed after gastric conduit necrosis and anastomotic leakage, respectively, in these patients. In both cases, the DD procedure combined with surgical fistula repair was feasible with no DD-related complications. These operations achieved a good effect in terms of preventing gastroduodenal reflux and ameliorating respiratory status. Reconstructive surgery after DD was performed and oral dietary intake was successfully resumed in one case.

CONCLUSION

DD appears to be a valid evacuation therapy when airway contamination with gastroduodenal reflux is not amenable to the conventional approach alone, and can usefully be included in the TGF treatment strategy in appropriate cases.

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.