Skip to main content

A comparative study of the lengths of different reconstruction routes used after thoracic esophagectomy

Abstract

Background

A challenge in esophageal reconstruction after esophagectomy is that the distance from the neck to the abdomen must be replaced with a long segment obtained from the gastrointestinal tract. The success or failure of the reconstruction depends on the blood flow to the reconstructed organ and the tension on the anastomotic site, both of which depend on the reconstruction distance. There are three possible esophageal reconstruction routes: posterior mediastinal, retrosternal, and subcutaneous. However, there is still no consensus as to which route is the shortest.

Methods

The length of each reconstruction route was retrospectively compared using measurements obtained during surgery, where the strategy was to pull up the gastric conduit through the shortest route. The proximal reference point was defined as the left inferior border of the cricoid cartilage and the distal reference point was defined as the superior border of the duodenum arising from the head of the pancreas.

Results

This study involved 112 Japanese patients with esophageal cancer (102 men, 10 women). The mean distances of the posterior mediastinal, retrosternal, and subcutaneous routes were 34.7 ± 2.37 cm, 32.4 ± 2.24 cm, and 36.3 ± 2.27 cm, respectively. The retrosternal route was significantly shorter than the other two routes (both p < 0.0001) and shorter by 2.31 cm on average than the posterior mediastinal route. The retrosternal route was longer than the posterior mediastinal route in only 5 patients, with a difference of less than 1 cm.

Conclusion

The retrosternal route was the shortest for esophageal reconstruction in living Japanese patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Takeuchi H, Miyata H, Gotoh M, et al. A risk model for esophagectomy using data of 5334 patients included in a Japanese nationwide web-based database. Ann Surg. 2014;260:259–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Orringer MB, Sloan H. Substernal gastric bypass of the excluded thoracic esophagus for palliation of esophageal carcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1975;70:836–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ngan SYK, Wong J. Length of different routes for esoophageal replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1986;91:790–2.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Coral RP, Constant-Neto M, Silva IS, et al. Comparaison anatomical study of the anterior and posterior mediastinum as access routes after esopahgestomy. Dis Esophagus. 2003;16:236–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen H, Lu JJ, Zhou J, et al. Anterior versus posterior routes of reconstruction after esophagectomy: a comparative anatomic study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87:400–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hu H, Ye T, Tan D, et al. Is anterior mediastinum route a shorter choice for esophageal reconstruction? A comparative anatomic study. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg. 2011;40:1466–9.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Yang J, Xu C, Lian D, et al. Esophageal reconstruction: posterior mediastinal or retrosternal route. J Surg Res. 2016;201:364–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wong I, Tong DKH, Tsang RKY, et al. Continuous intraoperative vagus nerve stimulation for monitoring of recurrent laryngeal nerve during minimally invasive esophagectomy. J Vis Surg. 2017;3:9. https://doi.org/10.21037/jovs.2016.12.11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kanemura T, Miyata H, Yamasaki M, et al. Usefulness of intraoperative nerve monitoring in esophageal cancer surgery in predicting recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy and its severity. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;67:1075–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Triantafyllou T, Olson MT, Theodorou D, et al. Enhanced recovery pathways vs standard care pathways in esophageal cancer surgery: systemic review and meta-analysis. Esophagus. 2020;17:100–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Urschel JD. Esophagogastrostomy anastomotic leaks complicating esophagectomy: a review. Am J Surg. 1995;69:634–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. van Lanschot JJB, van Blankenstein M, Oei HY, et al. Randomized comparison of prevertebral and retrosternal gastric tube reconstruction after resection of oesophageal carcinoma. Br J Surg. 1999;86:102–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shu YS, Shun C, Shi WP, et al. Tubular stomach or whole stomach for esophagectomy through cervico-thoraco-abdominal approach: a comparative clinical study on anastomotic leakage. Ir J Med Sci. 2013;182:477–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jansen SM, de Bruin DM, van Berge Henegouwen MI, et al. Optical techniques for perfusion monitoring of the gastric tube after esophagectomy: a review of technologies and thresholds. Dis Esophagus. 2018;31:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nishikawa K, Fujita T, Yuda M, et al. Quantitative assessment of blood flow in the gastric conduit with thermal imaging for esophageal reconstruction. Ann Surg. 2020;271:1087–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Urschel JD, Urschel DM, Miller JD, et al. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of route of reconstruction after esophagectomy for cancer. Am J Surg. 2001;182:470–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chan ML, Hsieh CC, Wang CW, et al. Reconstruction after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: retrosternal or posterior mediastinal route? J Chin Med Assoc. 2011;74:505–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takushi Yasuda.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial disclosures or commercial sponsorship to declare.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the institutional review board of the Kindai University Faculty of Medicine (2020-057). All procedures were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yasuda, T., Shiraishi, O., Kato, H. et al. A comparative study of the lengths of different reconstruction routes used after thoracic esophagectomy. Esophagus 18, 468–474 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10388-020-00805-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10388-020-00805-x

Keywords

  • Esophageal reconstruction route
  • Retrosternal route
  • Posterior mediastinum route
  • Subcutaneous route
  • Esophagectomy
  • Esophageal cancer