Following transhiatal oesophagectomy, delivery of the conduit into the posterior mediastinum and neck can potentially result in its devascularisation. A simple technique is described to protect the conduit during this phase of the operation. This procedure has now been performed in 56 consecutive cases (54 gastric and two colonic conduits). In one case (1.8%) the colonic conduit had to be removed due to venous engorgement. The anastomotic leak rate was 8/56 (14%), and 12 (21%) patients required oesophageal dilatation for a stricture. There were no cases of ischaemia of the conduit. This technique provides a means of safe delivery of the oesophageal replacement into the neck following transhiatal oesophagectomy.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Blunt esophagectomy without thoracotomy has been performed in 26 patients: four with benign disease and 22 with carcinomas involving various levels of the esophagus (10 cervicothoracic, one upper third, five middle third, and six distal third). Continuity of the alimentary tract was restored by anastomosing the pharynx or cervical esophagus either to stomach (19 patients) or to a colonic graft (seven patients). Esophageal resection and reconstruction were performed in a single stage in 25 patients, and the esophageal substitute was positioned in the posterior mediastinum in the original esophageal bed in 24 patients. There were no deaths directly related to the technique of blunt esophagectomy. Average intraoperative blood loss was 1,350 ml. for the entire group, 1,650 ml. for those requiring concomitant laryngectomy and 1,050 ml. for those undergoing esophagectomy without laryngectomy. Complications in these patients included pneumothorax (eight), transient hoarseness (five), pleural effusion (five), anastomotic leak (four), subphrenic abscess (one), and cerebrovascular accident (one). The five deaths were due to pheumonia (two), innominate artery rupture (two), and pulmonary embolus (one). Blunt esophagectomy without thoracotomy is safe and is far better tolerated physiologically than the combined transthoracic and abdominal operations more traditionally used for exophageal resection and reconstruction.
Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 12/1978; 76(5):643-54. · 4.17 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Reports of esophageal anastomotic complications often involve more gastric than colonic reconstructions and are incomplete because of fragmented followup by physicians unfamiliar with the surgical procedure.
Three hundred ninety-three consecutive esophagectomy patients had prevalence and risk factors determined for graft ischemia and anastomotic leak; 363 of these patients followed for more than 1 month (median 15 months) had prevalence and risk factors determined for anastomotic stricture.
Conduit ischemia occurred in 36 (9.2%) and anastomotic leak in 43 patients (10.9%). Risk factor for ischemia was comorbid conditions requiring therapy (Odds ratio [OR]: 2.2 [95% CI 1.1-4.3]), and for leak were ischemia (OR: 5.5 [95% CI 2.5-12.1]), neoadjuvant therapy (OR: 2.2 [95% CI 1.1-4.5]), and comorbid conditions (OR: 2.1 [95% CI 1.1-3.9]). A stricture developed in 80 patients (22.0%). Risk factors were ischemia (OR: 4.4 [95% CI 2.0-9.6]), anastomotic leak (OR: 3.8 [95% CI 1.9-7.6]), and increasing preoperative weight (p = 0.022). The prevalence of ischemia was similar after gastric (10.4%) versus colonic (7.4%) reconstruction; leak and stricture were more common (14.3% versus 6.1%, p = 0.013, 31.3% versus 8.7%, p < 0.0001, respectively) and strictures were more severe (11.2% versus 2%, p = 0.001) after gastric pull-up. Patients free of ischemia and leak who developed stricture were more likely to have had a gastric pull-up (25% versus 7%, p < 0.0001). Dilatation was effective treatment in 93% of patients.
After esophagectomy 10% of patients will develop conduit ischemia or an anastomotic leak and 22% will develop anastomotic stricture. Anastomotic leak and strictures are more common and the strictures are more severe after gastric pull-up compared with colon interposition. Dilatation is a safe and effective treatment.
Journal of the American College of Surgeons 04/2004; 198(4):536-41; discussion 541-2. DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2003.11.026 · 5.12 Impact Factor
Note: Although carefully collected, accuracy of this list of references cannot be guaranteed.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.