Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 2078–2085 | Cite as

Radiologic versus endoscopic evaluation of the conduit after esophageal resection: a prospective, blinded, intraindividually controlled diagnostic study

  • Anja SchaibleEmail author
  • Peter Sauer
  • Werner Hartwig
  • Thilo Hackert
  • Ulf Hinz
  • Boris Radeleff
  • Markus W. Büchler
  • Jens Werner



Anastomotic leakage is a major complication in esophageal surgery. Although contrast swallow is performed by many surgical centers before reintroduction of oral intake to exclude anastomotic leakage postoperatively, endoscopy is increasingly used in this situation and may be superior. This study compares radiographic contrast study and endoscopy for the identification of local complications after subtotal esophagectomy.


Between January 2006 and September 2007, a prospective, blinded, intraindividually controlled study was conducted in patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy due to esophageal cancer. A radiographic contrast study was performed prior to endoscopy on postoperative day 5–7. Technical feasibility, sensitivity, and specificity of the radiologic and endoscopic evaluations of the esophageal substitute were described.


Radiographic contrast study was possible in only 64 % of the patients (35 of 55). The contrast study could not be performed in 20 patients due to contraindications or mechanical ventilation. Endoscopy could be performed in all patients (p < 0.001). Pathologic findings were detected in 13 patients by endoscopy but in only 1 patient by contrast swallow. Leakage of the anastomosis or the conduit was correctly detected in 7 patients by endoscopy but in only 1 patient by contrast swallow (p = 0.01). Endoscopy detected focal conduit necrosis or ischemia in six additional patients. Contrast studies showed false-positive results in two patients. Both sensitivity and specificity of endoscopy were 100 %, while sensitivity and specificity of the contrast study were only 20 and 94 %. No complications resulted from postoperative endoscopy or radiologic imaging.


Endoscopic evaluation of the esophageal substitute in the early postoperative course is possible in all patients without complications. Endoscopy is superior to the contrast study in detecting pathological findings after esophageal reconstruction. Radiologic contrast swallow in the early postoperative days is often not possible, has no further relevance, and should be replaced by endoscopic evaluation.


Esophageal resection Anastomotic leakage Endoscopy 



Dr. Anja Schaible, Dr. Peter Sauer, Prof. Werner Hartwig, Prof. Thilo Hackert, Prof. Boris Radeleff, Hr. Ulf Hinz, Prof. Markus Büchler and Prof. Jens Werner have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Lerut T, Coosemans W, De Leyn P et al (2001) Optimizing treatment of carcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 10:863–884PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lam T, Fok M, Cheng S, Wong J (1992) Anastomotic complications after oesophagectomy for cancer - a comparison of neck and chest anastomoses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 104:395–400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sauvanet A, Baltar J, Le Mee J, Belghiti J (1998) Diagnosis and conservative management of intrathoracic leakage after oesophagectomy. Br J Surg 85:1446–1449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karl R, Schreiber R, Boulvare D et al (2000) Factors affecting morbidity, mortality, and survival in patients undergoing Ivor lewis esophagogastrectomy. Ann Surg 231:635–643PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alanezi K, Urschel J (2004) Mortality secondary to esophageal anastomotic leak. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 10:71–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siewert J, Stein H, Bartels H (2004) Anastomotic insufficiencies in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Chirurg 75:1063–1070PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dewar L, Gelfand G, Finley R et al (1992) Factors affecting anastomotic leak and stricture formation following esophagectomy and gastric tube interposition. Am J Surg 163:484–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rizk N, Bach P, Schrag D et al (2004) The impact of complications on outcomes after resection for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 198:42–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lagarde S, De Boer J, Kate F et al (2008) Postoperative complications after esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus are related to timing of death due to recurrence. Ann Surg 247:71–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bardini R, Bonavina L, Asolati M et al (1994) Single-layered cervical esophageal anastomoses: a prospective study of two suturing techniques. Ann Thorac Surg 58:1087–1090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lerut T (2000) The surgeon as a prognostic factor. Ann Surg 232:729–732PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whooley B, Law S, Murthy S et al (2001) Analysis of reduced death and complication rates after esophageal resection. Ann Surg 3:338–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Birkmeyer J, Stukel T, Siewers A et al (2003) Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 349:2117–2127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Briel J, Tamhankar A, Hagen J et al (2004) Prevalence and risk factors for ischemia, leak, and stricture of esophageal anastomosis. J Am Coll Surg 198:536–541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bruce J, Krukowski Z, Al-Kjairy G et al (2001) Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery. Br J Surg 88:1157–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nambirajan L, Rintala R, Losty P et al (1998) The value of early postoperative oesophagography following repair of oesophageal atresia. Pediatr Surg Int 13:76–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fernandez-Fernandez L, Tejero E, Tieso A (1996) Randomized trial of fibrin glue to seal mechanical oesophagojejunal anastomosis. Br J Surg 83:42–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Craig S, Walker W, Cameron E, Wightman A (1996) A prospective randomized study comparing stapled with handsewn oesophagogastric anastomoses. J R Coll Surg Edingb 175:367–370Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deshmane V, Shinde S (1994) The cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leak. Dis Esophagus 7:42–46Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tanomkiat W, Galassi W (2000) Barium sulfate as contrast medium for evaluation of postoperative anastomotic leaks. Acta Radiol 41:482–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fan S, Lau W, Yip W et al (1988) Limitations and dangers of gastrografin swallow after esophageal and upper gastric operations. Am J Surg 160:322–323Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Obertop H, Bosscha K, De Graaf P (1994) Mediastinitis from anastomotic disruption after esophageal resection and reconstruction for cancer: results of salvage surgery. Dis Esophagus 7:184–187Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Griffin S, Lamb P, Dresner S et al (2001) Diagnosis and management of a mediastinal leak following radical oesophagectomy. Br J Surg 88:1346–1351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Page R, Shackcloth M, Russell G, Pennefather S (2005) Surgical treatment of anastomotic leaks after oesophagectomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 27:337–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Manegold B (1981) Early postoperative endoscopy in the operated stomach. Endoscopy 13:104–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hölscher A, Vallböhmer D, Brabender J (2006) The prevention and management of perioperative complications. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 20:907–923PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maish M, DeMeesters S, Choustoulakis E et al (2005) The safety and usefulness of endoscopy for evaluation of the graft and anastomosis early after esophagectomy and reconstruction. Surg Endosc 19:1093–1102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liebermann-Meffert D, Meier R, Siewert J (1992) Vascular anatomy of the gastric tube used for esophageal reconstruction. Ann Thorac Surg 54:1110–1115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schilling M, Mettler D, Redaelli C, Büchler M (1997) Circulatory and anatomic differences among experimental gastric tubes as esophageal replacement. World J Surg 21:992–997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Akiyama H, Miyazono H, Tsurumaru M et al (1978) Use of the stomach as an esophageal substitute. Ann Surg 188:606–610PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Buchler M, Baer H, Seiler C, Schilling M (1996) A technique for gastroplasty as a substitute for the esophagus: fundus rotation gastroplasty. J Am Coll Surg 182:241–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Valverde A, Hay J, Fingerhut A et al (1996) Manual versus mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis after resection for carcinoma: a controlled trial. Surgery 120:476–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lamb P, Griffin S, Chandrashekar M et al (2004) Prospective study of routine contrast radiology after total gastrectomy. Br J Surg 91:1015–1019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hogan BA, Winter D, Broe P et al (2008) Prospective trial comparing contrast swallow, computed tomography and endoscopy to identify anastomotic leak following oesophagogastric surgery. Surg Endosc 22:767–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Urschel J (1995) Esophagogastrostomy anastomotic leaks complicating esophagectomy: a review. Am J Surg 169:634–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Crestanello J, Deschamps C, Cassivi S et al (2005) Selective management of intrathoracic anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129:254–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Van Bodegraven A, Kuipers E, Bonenkamp H, Meuwissen S (1999) Esophagopleural fistula treated endoscopically with argon beam electrocoagulation and clips. Gastrointest Endosc 50:407–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hühnerbein M, Stroszcynski C, Moestra K, Schlag P (2004) Treatment of thoracic anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy with self-expanding plastic stents. Ann Surg 240:801–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kauer K, Stein H, Dittler H, Siewert J (2008) Stent implantation as a treatment option in patients with thoracic anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 22:50–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Iannettoni M, Whyte R, Orringer M (1995) Catastrophic complications of the cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 110:1493–1501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anja Schaible
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter Sauer
    • 3
  • Werner Hartwig
    • 1
  • Thilo Hackert
    • 1
  • Ulf Hinz
    • 1
  • Boris Radeleff
    • 2
  • Markus W. Büchler
    • 1
  • Jens Werner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation SurgeryUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Department of GastroenterologyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations