Outcomes of Gastric Conduit in Corrosive Esophageal Stricture: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastric conduit has emerged as the preferred treatment option for both esophageal bypass and replacement for corrosive stricture of the esophagus. There is a lack of consensus and a dearth of published literature regarding the short- and long-term complications of using a gastric conduit. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the outcomes, morbidity, and complications associated with it.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar (January 1960 to May 2020) were systematically searched for all studies reporting short- and/or long-term outcomes and complications following the use of a gastric conduit for corrosive esophageal stricture.

RESULTS

Seven observational studies involving 489 patients (53.2% males, mean age ranging from 22.1 to 41 years) who had ingested a corrosive substance (acid in 74.8%, alkali in 20.7%, and unknown in the rest) were analyzed. Gastric pull-up was performed in 56.03% (274/489) of patients. Median blood loss in the procedure was 187.5 ml with a mean operative duration of 298.75 ± 55.73 min. The overall pooled prevalence rate of anastomotic leak was 14.4% [95% CI (6.2-24.0); p < 0.05, I² = 67.38], and anastomotic stricture was 27.2% [95% CI (13-42.8); p < 0.001, I² = 80.11]. Recurrent dysphagia according to pooled prevalence estimates occurred in 14.4% patients [95% CI (5.4-25.1); p < 0.05, I² = 69.1] and 90-day mortality in 4.8% patients [95% CI (1.5-9.1%); I² = 31.1, p = 0.202]. The dreaded complication of conduit necrosis had a pooled prevalence of 1.3% [95% CI (0.1-3.4%); I² = 0, p = 0.734].

CONCLUSION

The stomach can be safely used as the conduit of choice in corrosive strictures with an acceptable rate of complications, postoperative morbidity, and mortality.

The Circular Stapled Esophagogastric Anastomosis in Esophagectomy: No Differences in Anastomotic Insufficiency and Stricture Rates Between the 25 mm and 28 mm Circular Stapler

BACKGROUND

For patients undergoing an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with a circular stapled anastomosis, the optimal diameter of the used circular stapler to restore continuity is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the 25 mm stapled versus the 28 mm stapled esophagogastric anastomosis after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, focusing on anastomotic insufficiency and postoperative anastomotic strictures.

METHODS

Between February 2008 and June 2019, 349 consecutive patients underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction and circular stapled anastomosis. Patient characteristics and postoperative results, such as anastomotic insufficiency rates, postoperative anastomotic stricture rates, time to anastomotic stricture rate, and the number of dilatations, were recorded in a prospective database and analyzed.

RESULTS

In 222 patients (64%), the 25 mm circular stapler was used and in 127 patients (36%) the 28 mm circular stapler was used. There were no differences in baseline characteristics. Anastomotic insufficiency rates were comparable between the 25 mm (12%) and the 28 mm groups (11%) (p = 0.751). There were no differences between postoperative anastomotic strictures in the 25 mm (14%) and the 28 mm groups (14%) (p = 0.863). Within patients with postoperative anastomotic strictures, a median number of 2 dilatations were observed in each group (p = 0.573) without differences in the time to first diagnosis (p = 0.412).

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in anastomotic insufficiency and postoperative anastomotic stricture rates between the 25 mm and the 28 mm circular stapled esophagogastric anastomosis after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Both the 25 mm and 28 mm stapler can be safely used to create a circular stapled esophagogastric anastomosis to restore continuity after esophagectomy.

Radical Esophagectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation: Single Institutional Experience from Tertiary Cancer Centre in India

Although preoperative chemoradiation has shown to improve surgical outcomes in both loco-regional control and long term survival; it has still not become the standard of care in many centers. There is reluctance in accepting preoperative chemoradiation primarily due to fear of increased perioperative morbidity/mortality or non-availability of infrastructure and expertise. We present a retrospective analysis of our results of radical esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. All patients who underwent Radical Esophagectomy from January 2009 to December 2013 by a single surgical team at our institute were included in the series (n = 118). Patients undergoing surgery after chemo-radiation (group A = 66) were compared with those under going upfront surgery (group B = 52) in terms of patient variables (age, sex, comorbidities, tumor location, staging, histology) and postoperative surgical outcomes and complications using Chi square test. Overall and disease free survival was analyzed using Kaplan Meir curve. There was no difference in duration of surgery, postoperative stay and overall morbidity and mortality in both groups. Although group A patients had more of advanced cases clinically, but histopathology showed complete pathological response (pCR) in nearly 40 % patients and negative nodes (pN0) in 62.5 % patients. OS and DFS showed a trend towards better survival with preoperative chemoradiation. We conclude that radical esophagectomy after preoperative chemoradiation is feasible and safe in developing countries. Moreover pathological complete response correlates well with improved survival. Randomized control trials may be required to further substantiate the results.