Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 862–869 | Cite as

Outcome of Self-Expanding Metal Stents in the Treatment of Anastomotic Leaks After Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

  • Patrick Sven Plum
  • Till Herbold
  • Felix Berlth
  • Hildegard Christ
  • Hakan Alakus
  • Marc Bludau
  • De-Hua Chang
  • Christiane Josephine Bruns
  • Arnulf Heinrich Hölscher
  • Seung-Hun ChonEmail author
Original Scientific Report (including Papers Presented at Surgical Conferences)
  • 111 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Esophageal anastomotic leakages after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy are severe and life-threatening complications. We analyzed the outcome of using self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in the treatment of postoperative leakage after esophagogastrostomy.

Methods

Seventy patients with esophageal anastomotic leakage after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer who had received SEMS treatment between January 2006 and December 2015 at our clinic were identified in this retrospective study. The patients were analyzed according to demographic characteristics, risk factors, leakage characteristics, stent characteristics, stent-related complications, sealing success rate and mortality.

Results

Over a 10-year period, 70 patients received SEMS as treatment for postoperative anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy. Technical success of esophageal stenting in anastomotic leakage was achieved in 50 out of 70 cases (71.4%). Sealing success rate was 70% (n = 49) with a median treatment of 28 days (range 7–87). In 20 patients (28.6%), stent-related complications, such as stenosis, dislocation, leakage persistence, perforation or esophagotracheal fistula occurred after the SEMS treatment. Sixty-one patients (87.1%) survived SEMS treatment of esophagogastric anastomotic leakage. Mean follow-up for all patients was 38 months (IQR 10–76), and no significant difference was found in a comparison of the long-term survival rate between patients with successful and unsuccessful SEMS treatment.

Conclusions

The management of esophageal anastomotic leaks after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with SEMS is effective, safe and technically feasible. Aggressive non-surgical management should be considered when developing a treatment plan for stenting.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Lisa-Marie Teubler for proofreading the current manuscript. Furthermore, the authors also thank Helmut Schäfer for his technical expertise and his guidance as interventional endoscopist.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have nothing to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Xie SH, Mattsson F, Lagergren J (2017) Incidence trends in oesophageal cancer by histological type: an updated analysis in Sweden. Cancer Epidemiol 47:114–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2017.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD (2000) Eliminating the cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leak with a side- to-side stapled anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 119:277–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(00)70183-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glatz T, Marjanovic G, Kulemann B et al (2017) Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy vs. open esophagectomy: a matched case analysis in 120 patients. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 402:323–331.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-017-1550-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP et al (2017) Techniques and short-term outcomes for total minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophageal resection in distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers: pooled data from six European centers. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 31:119–126.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4938-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhou C, Zhang L, Wang H et al (2015) Superiority of minimally invasive oesophagectomy in reducing in-hospital mortality of patients with resectable oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10:e0132889.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132889 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Workum F, van der Maas J, van den Wildenberg FJH et al (2017) Improved functional results after minimally invasive esophagectomy: intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg 103:267–273.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Singhal S, Kailasam A, Akimoto S et al (2017) Simple technique of circular stapled anastomosis in Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 27:288–294.  https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Junemann-Ramirez M, Awan MY, Khan ZM, Rahamim JS (2005) Anastomotic leakage post-esophagogastrectomy for esophageal carcinoma: retrospective analysis of predictive factors, management and influence on longterm survival in a high volume centre. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 27:3–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.09.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vande Walle C, Ceelen WP, Boterberg T et al (2012) Anastomotic complications after ivor lewis esophagectomy in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation are related to radiation dose to the gastric fundus. Int J Radiat Oncol 82:e513–e519.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.05.071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wedemeyer J, Schneider A, Manns MP, Jackobs S (2008) Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure of upper intestinal anastomotic leaks. Gastrointest Endosc 67:708–711.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2007.10.064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bludau M, Hölscher AH, Herbold T et al (2014) Management of upper intestinal leaks using an endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure system (E-VAC). Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 28:896–901.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3244-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loske G, Schorsch T, Müller C (2010) Endoscopic vacuum sponge therapy for esophageal defects. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 24:2531–2535.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-0998-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Persson S, Rouvelas I, Kumagai K et al (2016) Treatment of esophageal anastomotic leakage with self-expanding metal stents: analysis of risk factors for treatment failure. Endosc Int Open 04:E420–E426.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-102878 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fernández A, González-Carrera V, González-Portela C et al (2015) Fully covered metal stents for the treatment of leaks after gastric and esophageal surgery. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 107:608–613Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eizaguirre E, Larburu S, Asensio JI et al (2016) Treatment of anastomotic leaks with metallic stent after esophagectomies. Dis Esophagus 29:86–92.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dote.12298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoeppner J, Kulemann B, Seifert G et al (2014) Covered self-expanding stent treatment for anastomotic leakage: outcomes in esophagogastric and esophagojejunal anastomoses. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 28:1703–1711.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3379-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Freeman RK, Vyverberg A, Ascioti AJ (2011) Esophageal stent placement for the treatment of acute intrathoracic anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 92:204–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.02.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leers JM, Vivaldi C, Schäfer H et al (2009) Endoscopic therapy for esophageal perforation or anastomotic leak with a self-expandable metallic stent. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 23:2258–2262.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0302-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kauer WKH, Stein HJ, Dittler H-J, Siewert JR (2008) Stent implantation as a treatment option in patients with thoracic anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 22:50–53.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9504-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schweigert M, Solymosi N, Dubecz A et al (2013) Endoscopic stent insertion for anastomotic leakage following oesophagectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 95:43–47.  https://doi.org/10.1308/003588413X13511609956255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nguyen NT, Rudersdorf PD, Smith BR et al (2011) Management of gastrointestinal leaks after minimally invasive esophagectomy: conventional treatments vs. endoscopic stenting. J Gastrointest Surg 15:1952–1960.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-011-1658-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aryaie AH, Singer JL, Fayezizadeh M et al (2017) Efficacy of endoscopic management of leak after foregut surgery with endoscopic covered self-expanding metal stents (SEMS). Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 31:612–617.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5005-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I et al (2015) International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg 262:286–294.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hölscher AH, Bollschweiler E, Schröder W et al (2011) Prognostic impact of upper, middle, and lower third mucosal or submucosal infiltration in early esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 254:802–807; discussion 807–808.  https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3182369128
  25. 25.
    Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2009) TNM classification of malignant tumours, 7th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Strauss C, Mal F, Perniceni T et al (2010) Computed tomography versus water-soluble contrast swallow in the detection of intrathoracic anastomotic leak complicating esophagogastrectomy (Ivor Lewis): a prospective study in 97 patients. Ann Surg 251:647–651.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181c1aeb8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hu Z, Wang X, An X et al (2017) The diagnostic value of routine contrast esophagram in anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy. World J Surg 41:2062–2067.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-3923-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cools-Lartigue J, Andalib A, Abo-Alsaud A et al (2014) Routine contrast esophagram has minimal impact on the postoperative management of patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 21:2573–2579.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3654-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Feith M, Gillen S, Schuster T et al (2011) Healing occurs in most patients that receive endoscopic stents for anastomotic leakage; dislocation remains a problem. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 9:202–210.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2010.12.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schubert D, Scheidbach H, Kuhn R et al (2005) Endoscopic treatment of thoracic esophageal anastomotic leaks by using silicone-covered, self-expanding polyester stents. Gastrointest Endosc 61:891–896.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(05)00325-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    El Hajj II, Imperiale TF, Rex DK et al (2014) Treatment of esophageal leaks, fistulae, and perforations with temporary stents: evaluation of efficacy, adverse events, and factors associated with successful outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 79:589–598.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2013.08.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dent B, Griffin SM, Jones R et al (2016) Management and outcomes of anastomotic leaks after oesophagectomy. Br J Surg 103:1033–1038.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dasari BVM, Neely D, Kennedy A et al (2014) The role of esophageal stents in the management of esophageal anastomotic leaks and benign esophageal perforations. Ann Surg 259:852–860.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Freeman RK, Ascioti AJ, Dake M, Mahidhara RS (2015) An assessment of the optimal time for removal of esophageal stents used in the treatment of an esophageal anastomotic leak or perforation. Ann Thorac Surg 100:422–426.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.03.085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Messager M, Warlaumont M, Renaud F et al (2017) Recent improvements in the management of esophageal anastomotic leak after surgery for cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:258–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.06.394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Sven Plum
    • 1
  • Till Herbold
    • 2
  • Felix Berlth
    • 1
  • Hildegard Christ
    • 3
  • Hakan Alakus
    • 1
  • Marc Bludau
    • 1
  • De-Hua Chang
    • 4
  • Christiane Josephine Bruns
    • 1
  • Arnulf Heinrich Hölscher
    • 5
  • Seung-Hun Chon
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of General, Visceral and Cancer SurgeryUniversity Hospital of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation SurgeryRWTH AachenAachenGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Medical Statistics and BioinformaticsUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  4. 4.Institute of RadiologyUniversity Hospital of CologneCologneGermany
  5. 5.Center for Esophageal and Gastric SurgeryAGAPLESION Markus KrankenhausFrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations