Perianastomotic drainage in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy, does habit affect utility? An 11-year single-center experience

Abstract

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a deadly complication after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. The use of an anastomotic drainage (AD), to diagnose and to potentially treat the leakage, is still a widespread practice. At present, scientific literature is lacking in this topic and its use is based on each center experience. We performed a retrospective analysis of 239 consecutive patients who underwent an Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in our Department from 01/01/2006 to 31/12/2017. Until 28/02/2014, a transthoracic anastomotic drainage was routinely placed in 119 patients (anastomotic-drain group). Drainage removal was planned on POD 5 after the resume of oral intake. In the remaining 120 cases, no drainage was placed (no anastomotic-drain group). We compared the two groups to assess whether the anastomotic drainage had an impact on the timing of the anastomotic leakage diagnosis and treatment. In our series, we observed 9 anastomotic leaks in the first group (7.6%) and 3 in the second one (2.5%). In the anastomotic-drain group, median time for leak diagnosis was 10 days, and notably, in seven cases, the anastomotic drainage was already removed. Considering all the patients who experienced an AL, a re-operation was mandatory in one case, while endoscopic treatment was chosen for five cases and conservative treatment was adopted in three cases. The median hospital length of stay in these patients was 31 days. In the no anastomotic-drain group, one patient with anastomotic leakage was treated conservatively and discharged after 34 days. The other two cases were re-operated and an esophageal prosthesis was placed in both cases, and these patients were discharged, respectively, on POD 28 and POD 38. Concluding, the role of the anastomotic drain in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy is still unclear. There is a shortage of the literature on this topic and our experience shows that the anastomotic drain has a limited sensibility in AL diagnosis and cannot replace the clinical signs and symptoms. Moreover, the drain it is often removed before the leakage becomes visible. In selected patients with a less severe leak, the anastomotic drain can be an effective treatment, but often a percutaneous drainage, it is an effective alternative choice. In severe dehiscence with sepsis, a reoperation remains the mainstay to control the mediastinal contamination and to eventually treat the leakage.

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

References

  1. 1.

    Lordick F, Mariette C, Haustermans K, Obermannová R, Arnold D (2016) Oesophageal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 27(suppl 5):50–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for Patients with Esophageal Cancer (NCCN). Version 1.2016

  3. 3.

    Gockel I, Niebisch S, Ahlbrand CJ et al (2016) Risk and complication management in esophageal cancer surgery: a review of the literature. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 64(7):596–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Cassivi SD (2004) Leaks, strictures, and necrosis: a review of anastomotic complications following esophagectomy. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 16(2):124–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    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(2):258–269

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    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 long-term survival in a high volume centre. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 27(1):3–7

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Low DE, Kuppusamy MK, Alderson D et al (2017) Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy. Ann Surg 269:291–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Zhou C, Ma G, Li X et al (2015) Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 13:269

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Low DE, Kuppusamy MK, Alderson D et al (2015) International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy. Ann Surg 262(2):286–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Melloul E, Hübner M, Scott M et al (2016) Guidelines for perioperative care for liver surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) society recommendations. World J Surg 40(10):2425–2440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Wang Z, Chen J, Su K, Dong Z (2015) Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:008788

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Low DE, Allum W, De Manzoni G, Ferri L, Immanuel A, Kuppusamy M, Law S, Lindblad M, Maynard N, Neal J, Pramesh CS, Scott M, Mark Smithers B, Addor V, Ljungqvist O (2018) Guidelines for perioperative care in esophagectomy: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations. World J Surg 43:299–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Zanoni A, Verlato G, Giacopuzzi S et al (2013) Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer in a single high-volume center. Ann Surg Oncol 20(6):1993–1999

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Giacopuzzi S, Weindelmayer J, Treppiedi E et al (2017) Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer: a single center experience. Dis Esophagus 30(4):1–6

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kassis ES, Kosinski AS, Ross P Jr, Koppes KE, Donahue JM, Daniel VC (2013) Predictors of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: an analysis of the society of thoracic surgeons general thoracic database. Ann Thorac Surg 96(6):1919–1926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Tang H, Xue L, Hong J, Tao X, Xu Z, Wu B (2012) A method for early diagnosis and treatment of intrathoracic esophageal anastomotic leakage: prophylactic placement of a drainage tube adjacent to the anastomosis. J Gastrointest Surg 16(4):722–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Baker EH, Hill JS, Reames MK, Symanowski J, Hurley SC, Salo JC (2016) Drain amylase aids detection of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. J Gastrointest Oncol 7(2):181–188

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Berkelmans GHK, Kouwenhoven EA, Smeets BJJ et al (2015) Diagnostic value of drain amylase for detecting intrathoracic leakage after esophagectomy. World J Gastroenterol 21(30):9118–9125

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Perry Y, Towe CW, Kwong J, Ho VP, Linden PA (2015) Serial drain amylase can accurately detect anastomotic leak after esophagectomy and may facilitate early discharge. Ann Thorac Surg 100(6):2041–2046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Siu WT, Chung SC, Li AK (1992) Chest drain penetration into the transposed stomach after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: diagnosis by early postoperative endoscopy. Surg Endosc 6(4):195–196

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Gossage JA, Chukwuemeka AO, Dussek JE (2003) Intercostal drain migration post esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 16(3):268–269

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Wilmot AS, Levine MS, Rubesin SE, Kucharczuk JC, Laufer I (2007) Intraluminal migration of surgical drains after transhiatal esophagogastrectomy: radiographic findings and clinical relevance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(4):780–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Weindelmayer J, Verlato G, Alberti L, Poli R, Priolo S, Bovo C, de Manzoni G (2018) Enhanced recovery protocol in esophagectomy, is it really worth it? A cost analysis related to team experience and protocol compliance. Dis Esophagus 32:114 (Epub ahead of print)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No sources of support have been used for this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

C.A. De Pasqual gave substantial contribution to the conception, acquisition, and analysis of the work, contributed to drafting, and approved the final version of the manuscript. J. Weindelmayer gave substantial contribution to conception of the work and interpretation of the data, contributed to drafting and revising of the paper, and approved the final version of the manuscript. S. Laiti, R. La Mendola, and L. Alberti gave substantial contribution to acquisition of data and contributed to revising of the work. They approved the final version of the manuscript. M. Bencivenga and S. Giacopuzzi gave substantial contribution to conception and interpretation of the data. Both contributed to revising of the paper. They approved the final version of the manuscript. G. de Manzoni gave substantial contribution to conception and interpretation of the data, contributed to revising of the paper, and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. A. De Pasqual.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The authors have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest.

Informed consent

No informed consent is required.

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

De Pasqual, C.A., Weindelmayer, J., Laiti, S. et al. Perianastomotic drainage in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy, does habit affect utility? An 11-year single-center experience. Updates Surg 72, 47–53 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-019-00674-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Esophagectomy
  • Anastomotic leakage
  • Esophago-gastric anastomosis