Advertisement

Management of intrathoracic and cervical anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review

  • Moniek H. P. VerstegenEmail author
  • Stefan A. W. Bouwense
  • Frans van Workum
  • Richard ten Broek
  • Peter D. Siersema
  • Maroeska Rovers
  • Camiel Rosman
Open Access
Review

Abstract

Background

Anastomotic leakage (0–30%) after esophagectomy is a severe complication and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine which treatment for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy have the best clinical outcome, based on the currently available literature.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science until April 2017. All studies reporting on the specific treatment of cervical or intrathoracic anastomotic leakage following esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction for esophageal or cardia cancer were included. The primary outcome parameter was postoperative mortality. Methodological quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.

Results

Nineteen retrospective cohort studies including 273 patients were identified. Methodological quality of all studies was poor to moderate. Mortality rates of intrathoracic anastomotic leakages in the treatment groups were as follows: conservative (14%), endoscopic stent (8%), endoscopic drainage (8%), endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure system (0%), and surgery treatment group (50%). Mortality rates of cervical anastomotic leakages in the treatment groups were as follows: conservative (8%), endoscopic stent (29%), and endoscopic dilatation (0%).

Discussion

Due to small cohorts, heterogeneity between studies, and lack of data regarding leakage characteristics, no evidence supporting a specific treatment for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy was found. A severity score based on leakage characteristics instead of treatment given is essential for determining the optimal treatment of anastomotic leakage. In the absence of robust evidence-based treatment guidelines, we suggest customized treatment depending on sequelae of the leak and clinical condition of the patient. PrDepartment of Surgery, Radboudumc, P.O.B. 9101/618 NLactical advices are provided.

Trial registration

Registration number PROSPERO: CRD42016032374.

Keywords

Anastomotic Leakage Intrathoracic Cervical Esophagectomy Treatment 

Abbreviations

CT

Computer tomography

ICU

Intensive care unit

MIE

Minimally invasive esophagectomy

NA

Not available

PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

SEMS

Self-expandable metallic stent

VAC

Vacuum-assisted closure

Background

The incidence of esophageal carcinoma is increasing. Yearly, 450,000 patients are diagnosed with esophageal cancer worldwide, and approximately 135,000 (30%) of these patients will undergo curative resection [1, 2]. Anastomotic leakage (0–30%) is a severe complication after esophagectomy [3, 4]. The occurrence of anastomotic leakage is associated with a prolonged length of stay on the intensive care unit (ICU) and within the hospital, a reduced quality of life, high costs, and an increased mortality rate [4, 5, 6, 7].

The severity of anastomotic leakage ranges from asymptomatic to full-blown sepsis with multiple organ failure. Factors that may influence the severity of the anastomotic leakage are the location of the anastomosis (intrathoracic or cervical), the size and circumference of the defect, and the extent of contamination [8]. Factors that influence the severity of anastomotic leakage might also impact the most appropriate treatment strategy. Treatment of anastomotic leakage ranges from “conservative” (nil by mouth, antibiotics, gastric drainage, enteral or parenteral feeding, and drainage through percutaneous tubes) to endoscopic treatment with stents or endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) devices, and surgery [9]. However, no generally accepted treatment strategy for the treatment of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy currently exists [10].

The aim of this study was to determine which treatment for a cervical or intrathoracic anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction has the best clinical outcome, based on literature findings.

Methods

This review was registered in the PROSPERO database for systematic reviews under number CRD42016032374 [11]. It was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the PRISMA checklist is shown online in Additional file 1: Appendix 1 [12]. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies published from inception to April 24, 2017. The search terms used were esophageal neoplasm or esophagectomy, and anastomotic leak or gastrointestinal leak, and synonyms, and were restricted to title, abstract, and keywords (see Additional file 1: Appendix 2 for the full electronic search strategy). There were no restrictions regarding language, year of publication, or publication status.

Study selection and data extraction

Titles, abstracts, and subsequently full-text articles were screened independently by two authors (M.V. and S.B.), and eligibility was assessed. All studies concerning the treatment of cervical and/or intrathoracic anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus or gastric cardia with gastric tube reconstruction were included. Studies not reporting the location of the anastomosis were excluded. Studies primarily investigating the treatment of other disorders affecting interruption of esophageal integrity such as iatrogenic injuries, spontaneous ruptures, conduit line dehiscence, or necrosis of the gastric conduit were excluded. In addition, review articles, editorials, case reports or cohort studies including fewer than five patients per specific treatment strategy, animal studies, and studies in children were excluded. Disagreement on eligibility was resolved after discussion. Reference lists of all included articles were screened manually to identify initially missed, but relevant studies. Data was extracted by M.V. and S.B. independently and entered into an electronic database (IBM SPSS for Windows version 22.0, Armonk, NY).

Assessment of methodological quality

The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies [13]. This scale rates studies on 3 sources of bias (selection, comparability, and outcome) based on 8 criteria. Each criterion is awarded with 1 star except comparability, which is awarded a maximum of 2 stars. For this systematic review, studies scoring 7–9 stars were considered to be of high methodological quality, studies scoring 4–6 stars were considered to be of moderate methodological quality, and studies scoring 1–3 stars were considered to be of poor methodological quality. The methodological quality of all included studies was assessed independently by 2 authors (M.V. and S.B.). Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third reviewer (C.R.).

Study characteristics, leakage characteristics, and outcome parameters

The following study characteristics were extracted: first author, year of publication, country of origin, number of included patients, study design (prospective or retrospective), type of modality used to diagnose the leakage, type of operation, and location of the anastomosis.

Data regarding leak characterization included the following: time from surgery to diagnosis of the leakage, time from diagnosis to treatment of the leakage, the mean interval of the leakage treatment, circumference of the leakage (0–25%, 25–50%, 50–75%, and 75–100%), length of the leakage (in centimeters), gastric conduit overall condition (vital, ischemic, or necrotic), and extent of the contamination (i.e., none, mediastinal fluid collections, or pleural fluid collections).

The primary outcome parameter was mortality rate. The secondary outcome parameters were as follows: success rate (when not defined by the author, defined as alive and no persisting leakage during time of follow-up), severe complications occurring after anastomotic leakage treatment (Clavien-Dindo [14] ≥ 3), reintervention rate (all surgical, endoscopic, and radiological reinterventions), reoperation rate, new onset of (multiple) organ failure, hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, and quality of life.

Analysis

Due to heterogeneity between studies, no meta-analysis could be performed. The weighted percentages and means were calculated to summarize the treatment outcomes for each subgroup.

Results

Included studies

Nineteen studies, including a total of 273 patients, met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. A summary of the screening and selection process is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Summary of screening and selection process, PRISMA diagram

Study characteristics

All 19 included studies were retrospective cohort studies [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33], of which 2 studies were comparative cohort studies (Table 1) [15, 16]. An intrathoracic anastomosis was performed in 200 patients and a cervical anastomosis in 73 patients. The incidence of anastomotic leakage could be calculated in only 2 studies; the incidence rates were 1% and 17%, respectively [16, 20]. The average age of the patients was described in 6 studies; the weighted mean was 58.0 years (range 28–92 years) [16, 20, 21, 28, 31, 33]. Neo-adjuvant treatment was reported in 1 study, in which none was given [24]. Tumor characteristics were reported in 2 studies; in 1 study, stage I esophageal cancer was found in 3 patients, stage IIA in 9, stage IIB patients in 11 patients, and stage III in 5 patients [33]. In 1 study, 8 patients were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma and 2 patients with squamous cell carcinoma [31]. In 3 studies, operations were performed minimally invasively [15, 25, 30].
Table 1

General study characteristics

Author

Country

Design

Patients (n)

Type of operation

Outcomes reported

Intrathoracic

 Griffin 2001 [18]

UK

NC

13

NA

Mortality/success/complication/reoperation

 Holscher 2003 [19]

DE

NC

6

Ivor Lewis

Mortality/success/complication/reoperation

 Hunerbein 2004 [21]

DE

NC

9

Transhiatal or Ivor Lewis

Mortality/success/complication/reintervention/reoperation/hospital and ICU stay

 Kauer 2008 [23]

DE

NC

10

Ivor Lewis

Mortality/success/complication/reintervention/reoperation

 Tuebergen 2008 [31]

DE

NC

18

Ivor Lewis

Mortality/success/reintervention/reoperation/hospital stay

 Qin 2010 [29]

CN

NC

5

Left thoracotomy

Mortality/success/hospital stay

 Hu 2011 [20]

CN

C

23

Ivor Lewis

Mortality/success/reoperation/hospital stay/ICU stay

 Hu 2011 [20]

CN

C

17

Ivor Lewis

Mortality/success/reoperation/hospital stay/ICU stay

 Jiang 2011 [22]

CN

C

7

Left thoracotomy

Mortality/success/complication/hospital stay

 Jiang 2011 [22]

CN

C

25

Left thoracotomy

Mortality/success/complication/hospital stay

 Yin 2012 [33]

CN

NC

28

Ivor Lewis

Mortality/success/complication/reintervention

 Al-Issa 2014 [15]

DK

NC

15

Ivor Lewis (some MIE)

Mortality/success/complication/reintervention/hospital stay

 Bludau 2014 [17]

DE

NC

5

Ivor Lewis

Mortality/success

 Shuto 2017 [30]

JP

NC

19

Ivor Lewis (some MIE)

Mortality/success/complication/reintervention

Cervical

 Orringer 1986 [28]

US

NC

5

Orringer

Mortality/success/complication/reintervention

 Bhasin 2000 [16]

IN

NC

8

Orringer

Mortality/success/complication/reintervention

 Korst 2005 [24]

US

NC

13

McKeown or left thoracotomy

Mortality/success/complication/reintervention/hospital stay

 Lindeman 2008 [27]

AT

NC

6

McKeown or Orringer

Mortality/success/complication/reintervention

 Larburu 2013 [25]

ES

NC

9

McKeown or Orringer (both MIE)

Mortality/success/complication/reoperation

 Leenders 2013 [26]

NL

NC

9

Orringer

Mortality/success/complication/reintervention/reoperation/hospital stay

 Van Rossum 2017 [32]

NL

NC

23

McKeown

Mortality/success/complication/reintervention/reoperation/hospital and ICU stay

Complication = severe complication rate, hospital stay = hospital length of stay, ICU stay = ICU length of stay, Ivor Lewis = esophagectomy by laparotomy and thoracotomy with intrathoracic anastomosis, McKeown = esophagectomy by laparotomy and thoracotomy with cervical anastomosis, MIE = minimally invasive esophagectomy, mortality = mortality rate, Orringer = transhiatal esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis, reintervention = reintervention rate, reoperation = reoperation rate, success = success rate

C comparative, NA not available, NC non-comparative

AT Austria, CN China, DE Germany, DK Denmark, ES Spain, IN India, JP Japan, NL Netherlands, UK United Kingdom, US United States of America

In 17 studies, the following modalities were used to diagnose anastomotic leakage: contrast swallow examination (n = 15 studies), endoscopy (n = 11 studies), and computed tomography (CT) scan (n = 10 studies). In 6 studies, a conservative treatment was performed consisting of the administration of antibiotics, nil by mouth, enteral tube feeding, gastric drainage and (percutaneous) drainage of the mediastinum, thoracic cavity, and/or wound [18, 20, 22, 24, 29, 32]. Patients were treated by endoscopic vacuum-assisted wound closure (VAC) system in 1 study [17], by endoscopic drainage in 4 studies [20, 22, 30, 33], and by endoscopic stent placement in 7 studies [15, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 31]. In 2 studies (n = 13 patients), endoscopic balloon dilatation was performed to improve the healing of the leak [16, 18]. One study performed a re-thoracotomy with revision of the anastomosis (Table 2) [19]. Quality of life was not reported in any of the studies. Severe complications were described in 15 studies [15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33], but none of the included studies reported the severity of complications according to the Clavien-Dindo scale.
Table 2

Clinical study characteristics

Author

Patients (n)

Diagnosis of leakage

General treatment

Investigational treatment

Intrathoracic

 Griffin 2001 [18]

13

Contrast/endoscopy

Antibiotics, nil by mouth, enteral feeding tube, gastric, mediastinal, and thoracic drainage

Conservative treatment

 Holscher 2003 [19]

6

Contrast/endoscopy/CT

Gastric drainage

Surgery

 Hunerbein 2004 [21]

9

Contrast/endoscopy

Antibiotics, thoracic drainage

Stent (plastic)

 Kauer 2008 [23]

10

Contrast/endoscopy

Mediastinal drainage

Stent (SEMS)

 Tuebergen 2008 [31]

18

Contrast/endoscopy

Antibiotics, nil by mouth, enteral feeding tube, gastric, mediastinal, and thoracic drainage

Stent (SEMS)

 Qin 2010 [29]

5

Contrast

Antibiotics, nil by mouth, enteral feeding tube, gastric, mediastinal, and thoracic drainage

Conservative treatment

 Hu 2011 [20]

23

Contrast/CT

Antibiotics, nil by mouth, enteral feeding tube, thoracic drainage

Endoscopic drainage

 Hu 2011 [20]

17

Contrast/CT

Antibiotics, nil by mouth, enteral feeding tube, gastric and thoracic drainage

Conservative treatment

 Jiang 2011 [22]

7

Contrast

Nil by mouth, enteral feeding tube, gastric and thoracic drainage

Conservative treatment

 Jiang 2011 [22]

25

Contrast

Nil by mouth, enteral feeding tube, thoracic drainage

Endoscopic drainage

 Yin 2012 [33]

28

Contrast/CT

Nil by mouth, enteral feeding tube, gastric drainage

Endoscopic drainage

 Al-Issa 2014 [15]

15

Endoscopy/CT

Antibiotics, nil by mouth, enteral feeding tube, thoracic drainage

Stent (SEMS)

 Bludau 2014 [17]

5

Contrast/endoscopy/CT

NA

Endoscopic VAC

 Shuto 2017 [30]

19

Contrast/endoscopy/CT

Antibiotics, nil by mouth, enteral feeding tube, gastric, mediastinal, and thoracic drainage

Endoscopic drainage

Cervical

 Orringer 1986 [28]

5

NA

Nil by mouth, enteral feeding tube, gastric drainage, wound drainage

Endoscopic dilatation

 Bhasin 2000 [16]

8

Contrast

Nil by mouth, enteral feeding tube, wound drainage

Endoscopic dilatation

 Korst 2005 [24]

13

Contrast/endoscopy/CT

Antibiotics, wound drainage

Conservative treatment

 Lindeman 2008 [27]

6

NA

Nil by mouth, wound drainage

Stent (SEMS)

 Larburu 2013 [25]

9

Contrast/endoscopy/CT

NA

Stent (SEMS)

 Leenders 2013 [26]

9

NA

Wound drainage or percutaneous drainage

Stent (SEMS)

 Van Rossum 2017 [32]

23

Contrast/endoscopy/CT

Nil by mouth, enteral feeding tube, gastric drainage, wound drainage

Conservative treatment

Conservative treatment = antibiotics/nil by mouth/enteral feeding tube/gastric drainage/mediastinal drainage/thoracic drainage/percutaneous drainage/wound drainage; contrast = contrast swallow examination

CT computerized tomography, NA not available, SEMS self-expandable metallic stent

Methodological quality

Methodological quality of the included studies is described in Table 3. The quality of the included studies was poor in 9 studies [15, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29] and moderate in 10 studies [16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33]. Ten of the 19 studies reported on selected cases (i.e., excluding the critically ill and intensive care patients) [15, 16, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33], which is not representative of the general hospitalized population with an anastomotic leakage after esophageal resection.
Table 3

Methodological quality

Author

Selection

Representativeness (maximum: one star)

Selection

Selection (maximum: one star)

Selection

Ascertainment (maximum: one star)

Selection

Outcome of interest (maximum: one star)

Comparability

Comparability (maximum: two stars)

Outcome

Assessment of outcome (maximum: one star)

Outcome

Duration of follow-up (maximum: one star)

Outcome

Adequacy of follow-up (maximum: one star)

Total Score (maximum: 9 stars)

Intrathoracic

 Griffin 2001 [18]

0

NA

0

*

NA

0

NA

NA

1

 Holscher 2003 [19]

*

NA

*

*

NA

0

NA

NA

3

 Hunerbein 2004 [21]

*

NA

*

*

NA

0

*

*

5

 Kauer 2008 [23]

*

NA

0

*

NA

*

NA

NA

3

 Tuebergen 2008 [31]

0

NA

*

*

NA

*

*

*

5

 Qin 2010 [29]

0

NA

*

*

NA

*

NA

NA

3

 Hu 2011 [20]

*

NA

*

*

**

0

NA

NA

5

 Jiang 2011 [22]

*

NA

*

*

*

0

*

*

6

 Yin 2012 [33]

0

NA

*

*

NA

0

*

*

4

 Al-Issa 2014 [15]

0

NA

*

*

NA

*

NA

NA

3

 Bludau 2014 [17]

*

NA

0

*

NA

*

0

*

4

 Shuto 2017 [30]

0

NA

*

*

NA

*

0

*

4

Cervical

 Orringer 1986 [28]

0

NA

0

*

NA

0

*

*

3

 Bhasin 2000 [16]

0

NA

*

*

NA

*

0

*

4

 Korst 2005 [24]

*

NA

0

*

NA

*

NA

NA

3

 Lindeman 2008 [27]

0

NA

*

*

NA

0

0

0

2

 Larburu 2013 [25]

*

NA

*

*

NA

0

NA

*

4

 Leenders 2013 [26]

0

NA

0

*

NA

0

NA

NA

1

 Van Rossum 2017 [32]

*

NA

*

*

NA

0

*

*

5

* = one star, ** = two stars

NA not available

Characteristics of anastomotic leakage

The mean time from surgery to diagnosis of the anastomotic leakage was reported in 9 studies and was 9 days (range 2–30) [16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 33]. Only 2 studies reported the time from diagnosing the leakage and the treatment of it (mean 8 days (range 0–20)) [16, 26]. The mean duration of the leakage treatment was reported in 11 studies and was 34 days [16, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33]. Two studies reported the percentage of the circumference of the leak; 1 study included patients with a defect less than 2/3 of the circumference [31], the other study with a defect between 10 and 30% of the circumference [27]. The length of the leak in centimeters was reported in 2 studies, 1 study only included patients with a leak > 1 cm [15] and 1 study only included patients with a leak > 0.5 cm [23]. No studies reported data on the general condition of the gastric tube. Five studies reported data on contamination that was caused by the leak but used different descriptions (e.g., small vs. extended, cervical vs. intrathoracic manifestation of the cervical leakages) [21, 22, 24, 25, 32]. In 4 patients, the leakage was associated with fistula formation to the airways (n = 2) or gastric conduit necrosis (n = 2) [25, 31]. None of the studies reported outcomes per anastomotic leakage characteristic, and therefore, no further analysis of the effectiveness of different treatment modalities per leakage characteristic could be performed.

Outcomes of anastomotic leakage treatment

All studies

The overall mortality was 11% (31/273 patients). The mortality rates were as follows: 12% (9/78 patients) in the conservative group, 14% (11/76 patients) in the endoscopic stent group, 8% (8/95 patients) in the endoscopic drainage group, 0% (0/5 patients) in the endoscopic VAC therapy, 0% (0/13 patients) in the endoscopic dilatation group, and 50% (3/6 patients) in the surgical treatment group (Table 4). Only two studies reported the new onset of (multiple) organ failure, respectively 14% (1/7 patients) and 50% (3/6 patients) of patients [19, 22]. Other outcome parameters are reported in Table 5.
Table 4

Primary outcome: mortality rate

 

Studies, n

Included patients, n

Mortality, n (%)

Overall

 Conservative

6

78

9 (12%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

7

76

11 (14%)

  Drainage

4

95

8 (8%)

  Endoscopic VAC

1

5

0 (0%)

  Dilatation

2

13

0 (0%)

 Surgical

1

6

3 (50%)

Intrathoracic anastomotic leakage

 Conservative

4

42

6 (14%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

4

52

4 (8%)

  Drainage

4

95

8 (8%)

  Endoscopic VAC

1

5

0 (0%)

 Surgical

1

6

3 (50%)

Cervical anastomotic leakage

 Conservative

2

36

3 (8%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

3

24

7 (29%)

  Dilatation

2

13

0 (0%)

VAC vacuum-assisted closure

Table 5

Other outcome parameters

 

Studies, n

Included patients, n

Outcome, n (%)

Mortality rate

 Conservative

6

78

9 (12%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

7

76

11 (14%)

  Drainage

4

95

8 (8%)

  Endoscopic VAC

1

5

0 (0%)

  Dilatation

2

13

0 (0%)

 Surgical

1

6

3 (50%)

Success rate

  Conservative

6

78

69 (88%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

7

76

57 (75%)

  Drainage

4

95

86 (91%)

  Endoscopic VAC

1

5

5 (100%)

  Dilatation

2

13

13 (100%)

 Surgical

1

6

3 (50%)

Severe complications

  Conservative

4

56

9 (16%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

6

58

27 (47%)

  Drainage

3

72

13 (18%)

  Endoscopic VAC

 

NA

NA

  Dilatation

2

13

5 (38%)

 Surgical

1

6

3 (50%)

Reinterventions

  Conservative

2

36

5 (36%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

6

67

27 (40%)

  Drainage

2

47

10 (21%)

  Endoscopic VAC

NA

NA

NA

  Dilatation

2

13

5 (38%)

 Surgical

NA

NA

NA

Mean number of reinterventions

  Conservative

2

36

3

 Endoscopic

  Stent

6

67

1

  Drainage

2

47

1

  Endoscopic VAC

NA

NA

NA

  Dilatation

2

13

4

 Surgical

NA

NA

NA

Reoperations

 Conservative

3

53

2 (4%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

4

46

6 (13%)

  Drainage

1

23

1 (4%)

  Endoscopic VAC

NA

NA

NA

  Dilatation

NA

NA

NA

 Surgical

1

6

2 (33%)

Hospital length of stay

  Conservative

4

65

41 days

 Endoscopic

  Stent

4

51

37 days

  Drainage

2

48

42 days

  Endoscopic VAC

NA

NA

NA

  Dilatation

NA

NA

NA

 Surgical

NA

NA

NA

ICU length of stay

  Conservative

2

40

16 days

 Endoscopic

  Stent

1

9

25 days

  Drainage

1

23

12 days

  Endoscopic VAC

NA

NA

NA

  Dilatation

NA

NA

NA

 Surgical

NA

NA

NA

VAC vacuum-assisted closure, NA not available

Subgroup—intrathoracic anastomotic leakage

The overall mortality after intrathoracic anastomotic leakage was 11% (21/200 patients). The mortality rates were as follows: 14% (6/42 patients) in the conservative group, 8% (4/52 patients) in the endoscopic stent group, 8% (8/95 patients) in the endoscopic drainage group, 0% (0/5 patients) in the endoscopic VAC therapy group, and 50% (3/6 patients) in the surgical treatment group (Table 4). The reintervention rate was higher in the endoscopic stent group compared to other treatment groups: 19 patients (37%) needed at least 1 reintervention, most often because of stent migration. Table 6 provides an overview of the other outcome measures.
Table 6

Outcomes intrathoracic anastomosis

 

Studies (n)

Included patients (n)

Outcome

Mortality rate

 Conservative

4

42

6 (14%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

4

52

4 (8%)

  Drainage

4

95

8 (8%)

  Endoscopic VAC

1

5

0 (0%)

 Surgical

1

6

3 (50%)

Success rate

 Conservative

4

42

36 (86%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

4

52

40 (77%)

  Drainage

4

95

86 (91%)

  Endoscopic VAC

1

5

5 (100%)

 Surgical

1

6

3 (50%)

Severe complications

 Conservative

2

20

3 (15%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

3

34

14 (41%)

  Drainage

3

72

13 (18%)

  Endoscopic VAC

NA

NA

NA

 Surgical

1

6

3 (50%)

Reinterventions

 Conservative

NA

NA

NA

 Endoscopic

  Stent

4

52

19 (37%)

  Drainage

2

47

10 (21%)

  Endoscopic VAC

NA

NA

NA

 Surgical

NA

NA

NA

Mean number of reinterventions

 Conservative

NA

NA

NA

 Endoscopic

  Stent

4

52

1

  Drainage

2

47

1

  Endoscopic VAC

NA

NA

NA

 Surgical

NA

NA

NA

Reoperations

 Conservative

2

30

1 (33%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

3

37

2 (5%)

  Drainage

1

23

1 (4%)

  Endoscopic VAC

NA

NA

NA

 Surgical

NA

NA

2 (33%)

Hospital length of stay

 Conservative

3

29

64 days

 Endoscopic

  Stent

3

42

38 days

  Drainage

2

48

42 days

  Endoscopic VAC

NA

NA

NA

 Surgical

  

NA

ICU length of stay

 Conservative

1

17

34 days

 Endoscopic

  Stent

1

9

25 days

  Drainage

1

23

12 days

  Endoscopic VAC

NA

NA

NA

 Surgical

NA

NA

NA

NA not available

Subgroup—cervical anastomotic leakage

The overall mortality after cervical anastomotic leakage was 14% (10/73 patients). The mortality rates were as follows: 8% (3/36 patients) in the conservative treatment group, 29% (7/24 patients) in the endoscopic stent group, and 0% (0/13 patients) in the endoscopic dilatation group (Table 4). The reintervention and reoperation rates were 53% (8/15 patients) and 44% (4/9 patients) in the endoscopic stent group. Table 7 provides an overview of the other outcome measures.
Table 7

Outcomes cervical anastomosis

 

Studies (n)

Included patients (n)

Outcome

Mortality rate

 Conservative

2

36

3 (8%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

3

24

7 (29%)

  Dilatation

2

13

0 (0%)

Success rate

 Conservative

2

36

33 (92%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

3

24

17 (71%)

  Dilatation

2

13

13 (100%)

Severe complications

 Conservative

2

36

6 (17%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

3

24

13 (54%)

  Dilatation

2

13

5 (38%)

Reinterventions

 Conservative

2

36

5 (14%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

2

15

8 (53%)

  Dilatation

2

13

5 (38%)

Mean number of reinterventions

 Conservative

2

36

3

 Endoscopic

  Stent

2

15

1

  Dilatation

2

13

4

Reoperations

 Conservative

1

23

1 (4%)

 Endoscopic

  Stent

1

9

4 (44%)

  Dilatation

NA

NA

NA

Hospital length of stay

 Conservative

2

36

22 days

 Endoscopic

  Stent

1

9

36 days

  Dilatation

NA

NA

NA

ICU length of stay

 Conservative

1

23

2 days

 Endoscopic

  Stent

NA

NA

NA

  Dilatation

NA

NA

NA

NA not available

Discussion

This is the first systematic review summarizing the results of different treatment strategies for anastomotic leakage in patients after esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction.

Results on conservative, endoscopic, and surgical treatment were reported in 6 studies, 14 studies, and 1 study, respectively. The mean overall mortality rate was 11%. In studies reporting the outcome of conservative treatment, the mean mortality was 12%, in the stent placement group 14%, and in the endoscopic drainage group 8%. For endoscopic VAC, endoscopic dilatation, and surgical treatment, the mortality rate could not reliably be estimated due to a low number of patients reported.

Strengths and limitations

Furthermore, this review reports factors that (may) influence the severity and outcome of an anastomotic leakage. A potential limitation of this review is that many studies were excluded based on title and abstract due to not reporting treatment results for cervical and intrathoracic leakage separately. Aware of the fact that more data on anastomotic leakage is available, we did not include these studies because it would not contribute in finding an answer to our research question. In addition, the methodological quality of the included studies was limited. Half of the studies reported results of a highly selected group of patients, which makes the external validity of these data weak. All studies were retrospective and included a limited number of patients. The objective of the present study was to investigate the treatment of anastomotic leakages; however, due to a lack of reported baseline characteristics and definitions of anastomotic leakages, it remains unclear whether these cohorts and leakage rates are comparable. Furthermore, additional treatments (e.g., nil by mouth, nutritional support, gastric drainage) which patients received alongside the investigational treatment were different between studies or not specified. Characterization of the leak and definitions of outcome parameters used were frequently lacking and not comparable between studies. Because of the heterogeneity of the included studies, performing a meta-analysis was deemed not scientifically and clinically relevant. Finally, multiple forms of bias were found in the data, i.e., in 13 studies, the follow-up length was not reported or too short to find long-term complications, i.e., stricture and fistula formation, or stent migration and 10 studies reported on selected cases (i.e., excluding the critically ill and intensive care patients).

Clinical implications

Based on the currently available evidence, it is not possible to provide a uniform strategy for the treatment of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy. Although achieving the aim of this systematic review was not entirely possible with the currently available evidence, this review is highly instrumental in exposing the limitations of the current evidence and therefore uncovering areas for future research. Firstly, it is important to separately report outcomes of intrathoracic and cervical anastomotic leaks, because evidence suggests that these are separate entities and probably necessitate different treatment strategies [4, 34]. Secondly, a uniform definition of anastomotic leakage, including factors that may influence the severity of anastomotic leakages and outcome parameters, should be described to make data transparent and comparable between studies. These factors may include length of the leak, circumference of the leak, condition of the gastric tube (vital, ischemic, necrotic), and contamination caused by the leak [35]. Adequate description of anastomotic leakage makes it possible to evaluate whether these factors actually contribute to leak severity and compare different treatment strategies. This may lead to an anastomotic leakage severity score. A score based on leakage characteristics, rather than a scoring system based on leakage therapy (e.g., the ECCG grading system [36]), is essential for providing clinicians an optimal treatment strategy for patients with an anastomotic leak. No evidence-based recommendations could be provided from the literature. For the current practice, we recommend, based on our experiences, all patients with an anastomotic leakage should be treated with intravenous antibiotics, nasogastric tube drainage, and where possible enteral feeding through a jejunal feeding tube or jejunostomy. In case of a cervical anastomosis, the neck wound should be opened. Additional interventions depend on the sequelae of the leak and the condition of the patient. Undrained collections of the mediastinum and thoracic cavity should be drained by surgical or radiological placed percutaneous drains and/or an endoscopic suction tube through the anastomotic defect. If drainage is insufficient or in case of more extensive contamination, a more aggressive strategy may be appropriate and drainage can be performed by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) or thoracotomy. In addition to drainage of fluid collections, the defect can be closed surgically or covered/closed with an endoscopically placed stent or E-VAC system. However, more data is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these recommendations. In this review, we showed that there are multiple treatments and strategies to treat anastomotic leakage. Together with the incidence of anastomotic leakage, it is unlikely that single-center cohort studies will include enough patients to provide robust data for an anastomotic leakage treatment strategy. More detailed data from a larger cohort is urgently needed to provide an evidence-based treatment strategy for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy. Currently, the TENTACLE study (TreatmENT of AnastomotiC Leakage after Esophagectomy), an international retrospective cohort study on patients with an anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, is being performed (NCT03829098) [37]. This study includes standardized characteristics of an anastomotic leakage and has a standardized outcome. This study could provide answers to current issues as which factors determine the severity of the leakage and which treatment options have the best outcomes.

Conclusions

Due to small cohorts in the included studies, heterogeneity between studies and lack of data regarding leakage characteristics, no evidence supporting a specific treatment for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy was found. A severity score based on leakage characteristics instead of treatment given is needed for determining the optimal treatment of anastomotic leakage. In the absence of robust evidence-based treatment guidelines, we recommend an individualized treatment depending on sequelae of the leak and condition of the patient.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

None of the authors received funding to perform this research.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

CR, MV, and SB made substantial contributions to the conception and design of this study. MV and SB collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data of the included studies. CR, FvW, RtB, PS, and MR were major contributors in interpreting the data and writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

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

Supplementary material

13017_2019_235_MOESM1_ESM.docx (145 kb)
Additional file 1: Appendix 1. PRISMA 2009 checklist. Appendix 2. The electronic sea. (DOCX 108 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Dikken JL, Lemmens VE, Wouters MW, Wijnhoven BP, Siersema PD, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, van Sandick JW, Cats A, Verheij M, Coebergh JW, van de Velde CJ. Increased incidence and survival for oesophageal cancer but not for gastric cardia cancer in the Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(11):1624–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pennathur A, Gibson MK, Jobe BA, Luketich JD. Oesophageal carcinoma. Lancet. 2013;381(9864):400–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Analysis of DUCA (Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit) registration database 2012. http://dica.nl/jaarrapportage-2017/duca.
  4. 4.
    Biere SS, Maas KW, Cuesta MA, van der Peet DL. Cervical or thoracic anastomosis after esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Surg. 2011;28(1):29–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alanezi K, Urschel JD. Mortality secondary to esophageal anastomotic leak. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;10(2):71–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, Levy RM, Keeley S, Shende M, Christie NA, Weksler B, Landreneau RJ, Abbas G, Schuchert MJ, Nason KS. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg. 2012;256(1):95–103.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Heijl M, Gooszen JA, Fockens P, Busch OR, van Lanschot JJ, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Risk factors for development of benign cervical strictures after esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2010;251(6):1064–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blackmon SH, Correa AM, Wynn B, Hofstetter WL, Martin LW, Mehran R, Rice DC, Swiser SG, Walsh GL, Roth JA, Vaporiyan AA. Propensity-matched analysis of three techniques for intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83(5):1805–13 discussion 13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin LW, Hofstetter W, Swisher SG, Roth JA. Management of intrathoracic leaks following esophagectomy. Adv Surg. 2006;40:173–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schaheen L, Blackmon SH, Nason KS. Optimal approach to the management of intrathoracic esophageal leak following esophagectomy: a systematic review. Am J Surg. 2014;208(4):536–43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wells G SB, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
  14. 14.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Al-issa MA, Petersen TI, Taha AY, Shehatha JS. The role of esophageal stent placement in the management of postesophagectomy anastomotic leak. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(1):39–42.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bhasin DK, Sharma BC, Gupta NM, Sinha SK, Singh K. Endoscopic dilation for treatment of anastomotic leaks following transhiatal esophagectomy. Endoscopy. 2000;32(6):469–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bludau M, Holscher AH, Herbold T, Leers JM, Gutschow C, Fuchs H, Schröder W. Management of upper intestinal leaks using an endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure system (E-VAC). Surg Endosc. 2014;28(3):896–901.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Griffin SM, Lamb PJ, Dresner SM, Richardson DL, Hayes N. Diagnosis and management of a mediastinal leak following radical oesophagectomy. Brit J Surg. 2001;88(10):1346–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holscher AH, Schroder W, Bollschweiler E, Beckurts KT, Schneider PM. How safe is high intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy? Chirurg. 2003;74(8):726–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hu Z, Yin R, Fan X, Zhang Q, Feng C, Yuan F, Chen J, Jiang F, Li N, Xu L. Treatment of intrathoracic anastomotic leak by nose fistula tube drainage after esophagectomy for cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2011;24(2):100–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hunerbein M, Stroszczynski C, Moesta KT, Schlag PM. Treatment of thoracic anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy with self-expanding plastic stents. Ann Surg. 2004;240(5):801–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jiang F, Yu MF, Ren BH, Yin GW, Zhang Q, Xu L. Nasogastric placement of sump tube through the leak for the treatment of esophagogastric anastomotic leak after esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma. J Surg Res. 2011;171(2):448–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kauer WK, Stein HJ, Dittler HJ, Siewert JR. Stent implantation as a treatment option in patients with thoracic anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(1):50–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Korst RJ, Port JL, Lee PC, Altorki NK. Intrathoracic manifestations of cervical anastomotic leaks after transthoracic esophagectomy for carcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80(4):1185–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Larburu Etxaniz S, Gonzales Reyna J, Elorza Orue JL, Asensio Gallego JI, Diez del Val I, Eizaguirre Letamendia E, Mar Medina B. Cervical anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: diagnosis and management. Cir Esp. 2013;91(1):31–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leenders BJ, Stronkhorst A, Smulders FJ, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Gilissen LP. Removable and repositionable covered metal self-expandable stents for leaks after upper gastrointestinal surgery: experiences in a tertiary referral hospital. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(8):2751–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lindenmann J, Matzi V, Porubsky C, Anegg U, Sankin O, Gabor S, Neuboeck N, Maier A, Smolle-Juettner FM. Self-expandable covered metal tracheal type stent for sealing cervical anastomotic leak after esophagectomy and gastric pull-up: pitfalls and possibilities. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85(1):354–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Orringer MB, Lemmer JH. Early dilation in the treatment of esophageal disruption. Ann Thorac Surg. 1986;42(5):536–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Qin J, Li Y, Zhang R, Yan M, Wang G, Liu B. Treatment of esophagogastric anastomotic leak with perianastomotic drain. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5(2):251–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shuto K, Kono T, Akutsu Y, Uesato M, Mori M, Matsuo K, Kosugi C, Hirano A, Tanaka K, Okazumi S, Koda K, Matsubara H. Naso-esophageal extraluminal drainage for postoperative anastomotic leak after thoracic esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30(3):1–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tuebergen D, Rijcken E, Mennigen R, Hopkins AM, Senninger N, Bruewer M. Treatment of thoracic esophageal anastomotic leaks and esophageal perforations with endoluminal stents: efficacy and current limitations. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12(7):1168–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Rossum PS, Haverkamp L, Carvello M, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R. Management and outcome of cervical versus intrathoracic manifestation of cervical anastomotic leakage after transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30(1):1–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yin G, Xu Q, Chen S, Bai X, Jiang F, Zhang Q, Xu L, Xu W. Fluoroscopically guided three-tube insertion for the treatment of postoperative gastroesophageal anastomotic leakage. Korean J Radiol. 2012;13(2):182–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gooszen JAH, Goense L, Gisbertz SS, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis and predictors of anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg. 2018;105(5):552–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Messager M, Warlaumont M, Renaud F, Marin H, Branche J, Piessen G, Mariette C. Recent improvements in the management of esophageal anastomotic leak after surgery for cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(2):258–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I, Chang AC, Darling GE, D’Journo XB, Griffin SM, Hölscher AH, Hofstetter WL, Jobe BA, Kitagawa Y, Kucharczuk JC, Law SY, Lerut TE, Maynard N, Pera M, Peters JH, Pramesh CS, Reynolds JV, Smithers BM, van Lanschot JJ. International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):286–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    TreatmENT of AnastomotiC Leakage After Esophagectomy (TENTACLE study) (NCT03829098). 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03829098

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryRadboudumcNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Gastroenterology and HepatologyRadboudumcNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Operating Rooms and Health EvidenceRadboudumcNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations