Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Esophageal Replacement Following Gastric Devascularization Is Safe, Feasible, and May Decrease Anastomotic Complications

  • 2009 SSAT Poster Presentation Manuscript
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Abstract

Background

Gastric transposition is the most common reconstruction after esophagectomy. Despite technical improvements, the incidence of anastomotic complications remains high. Gastric devascularization followed by esophageal resection and reconstruction has been proposed to minimize these complications.

Methods

Thirty-two patients underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy, and seven high-risk patients were selected for laparoscopic gastric devascularization performed either 1 week (n = 5) or 12 weeks (n = 2) before esophageal resection. Primary outcomes included anastomotic leak and stricture.

Results

Each patient underwent successful laparoscopic devascularization and subsequent esophagectomy. Devascularization required an average of 134 minutes with minimal operative blood loss. There were no complications following gastric devascularization or directly attributable to delay. None of the delay patients developed an anastomotic leak, compared to 16% of patients after immediate reconstruction (p = 0.258). One patient (14%) developed an anastomotic stricture that required endoscopic dilatation within the first year after surgery, compared to 12% of immediate reconstruction patients (p = 0.872).

Conclusion

In this series, all patients underwent successful delayed reconstruction following gastric devascularization without anastomotic leak. The absence of anastomotic leak in the delay group suggests that delayed conduit preparation can be accomplished safely while potentially reducing the morbidity associated with esophagectomy, but larger prospective studies are required to prove this definitively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Orringer MB, Marshall B, Jannettoni MD. Transhiatal esophagectomy: clinical experience and refinements. Ann Surg 1999;230:392–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ando N, Ozawa S, Kitagawa Y, et al. Improvement in the results of surgical treatment of advanced squamous cell esophageal carcinoma during 15 consecutive years. Ann Surg 2000;232:225–230.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Siewert JR, Stein HJ, Feith M, et al. Histologic tumor type is an independent prognostic parameter in esophageal cancer: lessons from more than 1,000 consecutive resections at a single center in the western world. Ann Surg 2001;234:360–369.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Holscher AH, Schroder W, Bollschweiler E, et al. How safe is high intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy? Chirurg 2003;74:726–733.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McCulloch P, Ward J, Tekkis PP. Mortality and morbidity in gastrooesophageal cancer surgery: initial results of ASCOT multicenter prospective cohort study. BMJ 2003;327:1192–1197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rentz J, Bull D, Harpole D, et al. Transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy: a prospective study of 945 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;125:1114–1120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Valverde A, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, et al. Manual versus mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis after resection for carcinoma: a controlled trial. Surgery 1996;120:476–483.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Briel JW, Tamhankar AP, Hagen JA, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for ischemia, leak and stricture of esophageal anastomosis: gastric pull-up versus colon interposition. J Am Coll Surg 2004;198:536–541.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Liebermann-Meffert DMI, Meier R, Siewert JR. Vascular anatomy of the gastric tube used for esophageal reconstruction. Ann Thorac Surg 1992;54:1110–1115.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pierie JP, De Graaf PW, Poen H, et al. Impaired healing of cervical esophagogastrostomies can be predicted by estimation of gastric serosal blood perfusion by laser Doppler flowmetry. Eur J Surg 1994;160:599–603.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Urschel JD. Esophagogastrostomy anastomotic leaks complicating esophagectomy: a review. Am J Surg 1995;169:634–640.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Boyle NH, Pearce A, Hunter D, et al. Scanning laser Doppler flowmetry and intraluminal recirculating gas tonometry in the assessment of gastric and jejunal perfusion during oesophageal resection. Br J Surg 1998;85:1407–1411.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schroder W, Stippel D, Lacher M, et al. Intraoperative changes of mucosal pCO2 during gastric tube formation. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2001;386:324–327.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schroder W, Beckurts KTE, Stähler D, et al. Microcirculatory changes associated with gastric tube formation in the pig. Eur Surg Res 2002;34:411–417.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Urschel JD. Esophagogastric anastomotic leaks: the importance of gastric ischemia and therapeutic applications of gastric conditioning. J Invest Surg 1998;11:245–250.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Urschel JD, Antkowiak JG, Delacure MD, Takita H. Ischemic conditioning (delay phenomenon) improves esophagogastric anastomotic wound healing in the rat. J Surg Oncol 1997;66:254–256.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Reavis KM, Chang EY, Hunter JG, Jobe BA. Utilization of the delay phenomenon improves blood flow and reduces collagen deposition in esophagogastric anastomoses. Ann Surg 2005;241:736–745.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Akiyama S, Ito S, Sekiguchi H, et al. Preoperative embolization of gastric arteries for esophageal cancer. Surgery 1996;120:542–546.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hölscher AH, Schneider PM, Gutschow C, Schröder W. Laparoscopic ischemic conditioning of the stomach for esophageal replacement. Ann Surg 2007;245:241–246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Berrisford RG, Veeramootoo D, Parameswaran R, et al. Laparoscopic ischaemic conditioning of the stomach may reduce gastric-conduit morbidity following total minimally invasive oesophagectomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009;36:888–893.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nguyen NT, Longoria M, Sabio A, et al. Preoperative laparoscopic ligation of the left gastric vessels in preparation for esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;81:2318–2320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Veeramootoo D, Shore AC, Shields B, et al. Ischemic conditioning shows a timedependent influence on the fate of the gastric conduit after minimally invasive esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 2010;24:1126–1131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Perry KA, Enestvedt CK, Diggs BS, Jobe BA, Hunter JG. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic transhiatal inversion esophagectomy compare favorably to those of combined thoracoscopic–laparoscopic esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 2009; E-pub ahead of print. doi:10.1007/s00464-008-0249-6.

  24. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Varela E, Reavis KM, Hinojosa MW, Nguyen NT. Laparoscopic gastric ischemic conditioning prior to esophagogastrectomy: technique and review. Surg Innov 2007;15:132–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Perry KA, Enestvedt CK, Gareau D, Pham TH, Truffer F, Dolan JP, Jacques SL, Hunter JG. Measuring acute changes in gastric conduit perfusion during minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) using optical fiber spectroscopy. Presented at the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, Phoenix, AZ, April 2009.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Kyle A. Perry

  2. Department of Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    C. Kristian Enestvedt, Thai H. Pham, James P. Dolan & John G. Hunter

  3. N701 Doan Hall, 300 West 10th Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Kyle A. Perry

Authors
  1. Kyle A. Perry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Kristian Enestvedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thai H. Pham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James P. Dolan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John G. Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyle A. Perry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perry, K.A., Enestvedt, C.K., Pham, T.H. et al. Esophageal Replacement Following Gastric Devascularization Is Safe, Feasible, and May Decrease Anastomotic Complications. J Gastrointest Surg 14, 1069–1073 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-010-1204-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-010-1204-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation