World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 128–131 | Cite as

Diagnostic Sensitivity of Contrast Swallow for Leakage after Gastric Resection

  • Hitoshi Tonouchi
  • Yasuhiko Mohri
  • Kouji Tanaka
  • Masaki Ohi
  • Minako Kobayashi
  • Koichiro Yamakado
  • Masato KusunokiEmail author



We examined the clinical manifestations and computed tomography findings of patients with leakage after gastrectomy for cancer and determined the sensitivity of the contrast swallow for the leakage diagnosis.


The medical records of 331 consecutive patients undergoing gastrectomy between January 1992 and December 2003 were reviewed. Routine contrast swallow was performed in all patients before oral intake. Once leakage was suspected, an emergency contrast swallow was performed and its diagnostic sensitivity determined.


In total, leakage was diagnosed 9 of 17 times by the contrast swallow, for a diagnostic sensitivity of 53%. The clinical signs or another imaging modality often corrected the misdiagnosis.


The diagnostic sensitivity of contrast swallow for leakage after gastrectomy was low. Therefore, if we employ the contrast swallow technique, we should keep in mind its low sensitivity.


Total Gastrectomy Compute Tomography Finding Diagnostic Sensitivity Anastomotic Site Circular Stapler 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Ichikawa D, Kurioka H, Yamaguchi T, et al. Postoperative complications following gastrectomy for gastric cancer during the last decade. Hepatogastroenterology 2004;51:613–617PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lang H, Piso P, Stukenborg C, et al. Management and results of proximal anastomotic leakages in a series of 1114 total gastrectomies for gastric carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2000;26:168–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Csendes A, Diaz JC, Burdiles P, et al. Classification and treatment of anastomotic leakage after extended total gastrectomy in gastric carcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology 1990;37(Suppl 2):174–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peel ALG, Taylor EW. Proposed definition for the audit of postoperative infection: a discussion paper. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1991;73:385–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lamb PJ, Griffin SM, Chandrashekar MV, et al. Prospective study of routine contrast radiology after total gastrectomy. Br J Surg 2004;91:1015–1019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim KW, Choi BI, Han JK, et al. Postoperative anatomic and pathologic findings at CT following gastrectomy. Radiographics 2002;22:323–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruce J, Krukowski ZH, Al-Khairy G, et al. Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leakage after gastrointestinal surgery. Br J Surg 2001;88:1157–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Woodfield CA, Levine MS. The postoperative stomach. Eur J Radiol 2005;53:341–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hitoshi Tonouchi
    • 1
  • Yasuhiko Mohri
    • 2
  • Kouji Tanaka
    • 2
  • Masaki Ohi
    • 2
  • Minako Kobayashi
    • 1
  • Koichiro Yamakado
    • 3
  • Masato Kusunoki
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Innovative SurgeryMie University, Graduate School of MedicineTsuJapan
  2. 2.Department of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric SurgeryMie University, Graduate School of MedicineTsuJapan
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyMie University, Graduate School of MedicineTsuJapan

Personalised recommendations