Effect of thoracic versus cervical anastomosis on anastomotic leak among patients who undergo esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation

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.

Adipose-Derived Stem Cells Prevent Anastomotic Leak: A Porcine Ischemic Esophagectomy Model

INTRODUCTION

Esophagectomy is a lifesaving procedure plagued by an anastomotic leak rate of 11%-35%. Ischemia is widely accepted to be the most significant risk factor for anastomotic leak. We hypothesized that the injection of adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) into an ischemic esophagogastric anastomosis would prevent leakage.

METHODS

We developed a leaking ischemic esophagogastric anastomosis model in pigs using indocyanine green and the Elevision device to quantify perfusion. Anastomoses created using a gastric conduit with a relative perfusion of 50%-60% produced an anastomosis that consistently leaked (n = 3) compared to nonischemic controls (n = 3). We then injected either human (n = 2) or porcine (n = 2) ASCs around an ischemic anastomosis. We analyzed clinical outcomes including postoperative sepsis, weight loss, and disruption of the anastomosis and histopathology as well as immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

All of the ischemic controls (3/3, 100%), as well as the xenograft human ASC-injected experimental group (2/2, 100%), became septic postoperatively and were found to have an anastomotic breakdown or disruption on necropsy. However, in the porcine allograft ASC-injected experimental group, the animals did well, with none of the subjects experiencing postoperative sepsis, and none were found to have disrupted anastomoses on necropsy. Histopathology revealed improved apposition of the anastomosis and immunohistochemistry revealed improved epithelization and submucosal fibrosis of the porcine ASC group compared to ischemic and human ASC groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Allogenic ASCs prevented anastomotic leakage of esophagogastric anastomosis in a porcine ischemic esophagectomy model.

Long-term outcomes of intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis after esophagectomy: A large-scale propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is a prevalent and aggressive gastrointestinal tumor, particularly in East Asia. However, there is a lack of consensus on the long-term survival outcomes of intrathoracic anastomosis and cervical anastomosis following esophagectomy. This study aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the long-term survival outcomes of these 2 anastomosis techniques.

METHODS

We employed data drawn from the Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute Esophageal Cancer Case Management Database from January 2010 to December 2017. Patients were stratified into 2 distinct groups according to the anatomical location of anastomosis following esophagectomy: those who underwent intrathoracic anastomosis (IA) (IA group) and those who underwent cervical anastomosis (CA) (CA group). To account for potential confounding factors and baseline imbalances between the 2 groups, propensity score matching was employed.

RESULTS

The CA group exhibited longer overall survival compared with the IA group, with a median overall survival of 49.10 months versus 35.87 months (hazard ratio, 1.118; 95% CI, 1.118-1.412; P < .001). Additionally, survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were higher in the CA group (87%, 59%, and 48%, respectively) compared with the IA group (86%, 50%, and 39%, respectively). The significance persisted even after propensity score matching (hazard ratio, 1.164; 95% CI, 1.013-1.336; P < .001), inverse probability of treatment weighting, and overlap weighting were applied. The survival difference between CA and IA was attributed to varying extents of lymph node dissection, particularly in the upper mediastinal zone (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that there could be the potential survival advantage of CA over IA in patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Half of Anastomotic Leaks After Esophagectomy Are Undetected on Initial Postoperative Esophagram

BACKGROUND

The sensitivity of fluoroscopic esophagography with oral administration of contrast material to exclude anastomotic leak after esophagectomy is not well documented, and the consequences of missing a leak in this setting have not been previously described.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained institutional database of patients undergoing esophagectomy with esophagogastric anastomosis from 2008 to 2020. Relevant details of leaks, management, and outcomes were obtained from the database and formal chart review. Statistical analysis was performed to compare patients with and without leaks and those with false-negative vs positive esophagrams.

RESULTS

There were 384 patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastric reconstruction; the majority were Ivor-Lewis (82%), and 51% were wholly or partially minimally invasive. By use of a broad definition of leak, 55 patients (16.7%) developed an anastomotic leak. Of the 55 patients, 27 (49%) who ultimately were found to have a leak initially had a normal esophagram result (performed on average on postoperative day 6). Those with a normal initial esophagram result were more likely to have an uncontained leak (81% vs 29%; P < .01), to require unplanned readmission (70% vs 39%; P = .02), and to undergo reoperation (44% vs 11%; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Early postoperative esophagrams intended to evaluate anastomotic integrity have a low sensitivity of 51%, and leaks missed on the initial esophagram have greater clinical consequences than those identified on the initial esophagram. These findings suggest that a high index of suspicion must be maintained even after a normal esophagram result and call into question the common practice of using this test to triage patients for diet advancement.

Comparison of the clinical outcomes after esophagectomy between intrathoracic anastomosis and cervical anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Esophageal cancer is a high-mortality disease. Esophagectomy is the most effective method to treat esophageal cancer, accompanied with a high incidence of post-operation complications. The anastomosis has a close connection to many severe post-operation complications. However, it remains controversial about the choice of intrathoracic anastomosis (IA) or cervical anastomosis (CA). The study was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes between the two approaches.

METHODS

We searched databases for both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing post-operation outcomes between IA and CA. Primary outcomes were the incidences of anastomotic leakage and mortality. Secondary outcomes were the incidences of anastomotic stenosis, pneumonia and re-operation.

RESULTS

Twenty studies with a total of 7,479 patients (CA group: n = 3,183; IA group: n = 4296) were included. The results indicated that CA group had a higher incidence of anastomotic leakage than IA group (odds ratio [OR] = 2.05, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.61-2.60, I² = 53.31%, P < 0.01). Subgroup analyses showed that CA group had higher incidences of type I (OR = 2.19, 95%CI = 1.05-4.57, I² = 0.00%, P = 0.04) and type II (OR = 2.75, 95%CI = 1.95-3.88, I² = 1.80%, P < 0.01) anastomotic leakage than IA group. No difference was found in type III anastomotic leakage (OR = 1.23, 95%CI = 0.82-1.86, I² = 20.92%, P = 0.31). The 90-day mortality (OR = 1.66, 95%CI = 1.11-2.47, I² = 0.0%, P = 0.01) in IA group were lower than that in CA group. No difference was found in in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.31, 95%CI = 0.91-1.88, I² = 0.00%, P = 0.15) and 30-day mortality (OR = 1.08, 95%CI = 0.69-1.70, I² = 0.00%, P = 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

IA might be a better anastomotic approach than CA, with a lower incidence of anastomosis leakage and no increase in short-term mortality. Significant heterogeneity and publication bias might limit the reliability of the results. More high-quality studies are needed to verify and update our findings.

Short-term outcomes of Ivor Lewis vs. McKeown esophagectomy: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to assess the rate of anastomotic leak and other perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing esophagectomy with either thoracic or cervical anastomosis.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was conducted by searching relevant literature studies in Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases. Articles that included patients undergoing esophagectomy and compared perioperative outcomes of McKeown with Ivor Lewis procedures were included. The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leak, and secondary outcome parameters were grade ≥2 anastomotic leak, chylothorax, recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, postoperative mortality rate, operative time, blood loss, R0 resection rate, and lymph nodes examined.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies, with 3,291 patients (1,857 Ivor Lewis procedure and 1,434 McKeown procedure) were eligible for analysis. Meta-analysis showed that Ivor Lewis procedure was associated with lower rate of anastomosis leak of all grades [risk ratio (RR), 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.55-0.82; P = 0.0001], lower rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (RR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.08-0.25), and shorter length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.22). Grade ≥2 anastomotic leak, chylothorax, ICU length of stay, postoperative mortality rate, operative time, blood loss, R0 resection rate, and lymph nodes examined were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although all grades of anastomotic leak and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury are higher in the McKeown procedure, this meta-analysis supports similar short-term outcomes and oncological efficacy between Ivor Lewis and McKeown esophagectomy.

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.

Trimodality therapy for esophageal cancer: The role of surgical and radiation treatment parameters in the development of anastomotic complications

Background

Here, we investigated the relationship between clinical parameters, including the site of surgical anastomosis and radiation dose to the anastomotic region, and anastomotic complications in esophageal cancer patients treated with trimodality therapy.

Methods

Between 2007 and 2016, esophageal cancer patients treated with trimodality therapy at a tertiary academic cancer center were identified. Patient, treatment, and outcome parameters were collected. Radiation dose to the gastric regions were extracted. Anastomotic complication was defined as leak and/or stricture. We used Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests to compare the association between clinical parameters and anastomotic complications.

Results

Of 89 patients identified, the median age was 63 years, 82% (n = 73) were male, and 82% had distal (n = 47) or gastroesophageal junction (n = 26) tumors. Median follow‐up was 25.8 months. Esophagectomies were performed with cervical (65%, n = 58) or thoracic anastomoses (35%, n = 31). Anastomotic complications developed in 60% (n = 53). Cervical anastomosis was associated with anastomotic complications (83%, n = 44/53, p < 0.01). Radiation to any gastric substructure was not associated with anastomotic complications (p > 0.05). In the subset of patients with distal/gastroesophageal junction tumors undergoing esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis where radiation was delivered to the future neoesophagus, 80% (n = 35/44) developed anastomotic complications. In this high‐risk subgroup, radiation was not associated with anastomotic complications (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Our analysis did not demonstrate an association between radiation dose to gastric substructures and anastomotic complications. However, it showed an association between esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis and anastomotic complications. Patients with distal/gastroesophageal junction tumors who undergo esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis have higher rates of anastomotic complications unrelated to radiation to gastric substructures.

Outcomes of Patients with Anastomotic Leakage After Transhiatal, McKeown or Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Background

Anastomotic leakage has a great impact on clinical outcomes after esophagectomy. It has never been studied whether anastomotic leakage is of equal severity between different types of esophagectomy (i.e., transhiatal, McKeown and Ivor Lewis) in terms of postoperative mortality and morbidity.

Methods

All esophageal cancer patients with anastomotic leakage after transhiatal, McKeown or Ivor Lewis esophagectomy between 2011 and 2019 were selected from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) registry. The primary outcome was 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, re-operation and ICU readmission rate.

Results

Data from 1030 patients with anastomotic leakage after transhiatal (n=287), McKeown (n=397) and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (n=346) were evaluated. The 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate was 4.5% in patients with leakage after transhiatal esophagectomy, 8.1% after McKeown and 8.1% after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (P=0.139). After correction for confounders, leakage after transhiatal resection was associated with lower mortality (OR 0.152–0.699, P=0.004), but mortality after McKeown and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was similar. Re-operation rate was 24.0% after transhiatal, 40.6% after McKeown and 41.3% after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (P<0.001). ICU readmission rate was 24.0% after transhiatal, 37.8% after McKeown and 43.4% after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (P<0.001).

Conclusion

This study in patients with anastomotic leakage confirms a strong association between severity of clinical consequences and different types of esophagectomy. It supports the hypothesis that cervical leakage is generally less severe than intrathoracic leakage. The clinical impact of anastomotic leakage should be taken into account, in addition to its incidence, when different types of esophagectomy are compared by clinicians or researchers.

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.