Skip to main content
Log in

The Effect of Laparoscopic Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Prior to Esophagectomy on Anastomotic Stricture Rate and Comparison with Esophagectomy-Alone Controls

  • Thoracic Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Benign anastomotic stricture is a recognized complication following esophagectomy. Laparoscopic gastric ischemic preconditioning (LGIP) prior to esophagectomy has been associated with decreased anastomotic leak rates; however, its effect on stricture and the need for subsequent endoscopic intervention is not well studied.

Methods

This was a case-control study at an academic medical center using consecutive patients undergoing oncologic esophagectomies (July 2012–July 2022). Our institution initiated an LGIP protocol on 1 January 2021. The primary outcome was the occurrence of stricture within 1 year of esophagectomy, while secondary outcomes were stricture severity and frequency of interventions within the 6 months following stricture. Bivariable comparisons were performed using Chi-square, Fisher’s exact, or Mann–Whitney U tests. Multivariable regression controlling for confounders was performed to generate risk-adjust odds ratios and to identify the independent effect of LGIP.

Results

Of 253 esophagectomies, 42 (16.6%) underwent LGIP prior to esophagectomy. There were 45 (17.7%) anastomotic strictures requiring endoscopic intervention, including three patients who underwent LGIP and 42 who did not. Median time to stricture was 144 days. Those who underwent LGIP were significantly less likely to develop anastomotic stricture (7.1% vs. 19.9%; p = 0.048). After controlling for confounders, this difference was no longer significant (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.14–1.82; p = 0.29). Of those who developed stricture, there was a trend toward less severe strictures and decreased need for endoscopic dilation in the LGIP group (all p < 0.20).

Conclusion

LGIP may reduce the rate and severity of symptomatic anastomotic stricture following esophagectomy. A multi-institutional trial evaluating the effect of LGIP on stricture and other anastomotic complications is warranted.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Then EO, Lopez M, Saleem S, et al. Esophageal cancer: an updated surveillance epidemiology and end results database analysis. World J Oncol. 2020;11(2):55–64. https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1254.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Jemal A, Ward EM, Johnson CJ, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2014 featuring survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djx030.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, et al. Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000–14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet. 2018;391(10125):1023–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33326-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Rutegard M, Lagergren P, Rouvelas I, Mason R, Lagergren J. Surgical complications and long-term survival after esophagectomy for cancer in a nationwide Swedish cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(7):555–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2012.02.177.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Low DE, Kuppusamy MK, Alderson D, et al. Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2019;269(2):291–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002611.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Alghamedi A, Buduhan G, Tan L, et al. Quality of life assessment in esophagectomy patients. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6(4):84. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2017.11.38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Svetanoff WJ, McGahan R, Singhal S, Bertellotti C, Mittal SK. Quality of life after esophageal resection. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2018;9:137–46. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S150180.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD. Eliminating the cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leak with a side-to-side stapled anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119(2):277–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(00)70183-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim HR. Stricture following esophageal reconstruction. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;53(4):222–5. https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2020.53.4.222.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Johansson J, Zilling T, von Holstein CS, Johnsson F, Oberg S, Walther B. Anastomotic diameters and strictures following esophagectomy and total gastrectomy in 256 patients. World J Surg. 2000;24(1):78–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002689910015.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Huang Q, Zhong J, Yang T, et al. Impacts of anastomotic complications on the health-related quality of life after esophagectomy. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111(4):365–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23837.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Urschel JD, Blewett CJ, Bennett WF, Miller JD, Young JE. Handsewn or stapled esophagogastric anastomoses after esophagectomy for cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dis Esophagus. 2001;14(3–4):212–7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2050.2001.00187.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Petrin G, Ruol A, Battaglia G, et al. Anastomotic stenoses occurring after circular stapling in esophageal cancer surgery. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(7):670–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004640000020.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ghelfi J, Brichon P-Y, Frandon J, et al. Ischemic gastric conditioning by preoperative arterial embolization before oncologic esophagectomy: a single-center experience. CardioVascul Int Radiol. 2017;40(5):712–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-016-1556-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schröder W, Hölscher AH, Bludau M, Vallböhmer D, Bollschweiler E, Gutschow C. Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with and without laparoscopic conditioning of the gastric conduit. World J Surg. 2010;34(4):738–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-010-0403-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nguyen NT, Nguyen X-MT, Reavis KM, Elliott C, Masoomi H, Stamos MJ. Minimally invasive esophagectomy with and without gastric ischemic conditioning. Surgical Endosc. 2012;26(6):1637–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2083-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Diana M, Hübner M, Vuilleumier H, et al. Redistribution of gastric blood flow by embolization of gastric arteries before esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91(5):1546–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.01.081.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gergen AK, Stuart CM, Byers S, et al. Prospective evaluation of a universally applied laparoscopic gastric ischemic preconditioning protocol prior to esophagectomy with comparison with historical controls. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13689-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Pasha SF, Acosta RD, et al. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of dysphagia. Gastrointest Endosc. (2014) 79(2):191-201. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2013.07.042

  20. Scolapio JS, Pasha TM, Gostout CJ, et al. A randomized prospective study comparing rigid to balloon dilators for benign esophageal strictures and rings. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;50(1):13–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5107(99)70337-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Siegal SR, Parmar AD, Haisley KR, et al. Gastric ischemic conditioning prior to esophagectomy is associated with decreased stricture rate and overall anastomotic complications. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22(9):1501–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3817-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nguyen NT, Nguyen XM, Reavis KM, Elliott C, Masoomi H, Stamos MJ. Minimally invasive esophagectomy with and without gastric ischemic conditioning. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(6):1637–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2083-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Na B, Kang CH, Na KJ, Park S, Park IK, Kim YT. Risk factors of anastomosis stricture after esophagectomy and the impact of anastomosis technique. Ann Thorac Surg. 2023;115(5):1257–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2023.01.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tabatabai A, Hashemi M, Mohajeri G, Ahmadinejad M, Khan IA, Haghdani S. Incidence and risk factors predisposing anastomotic leak after transhiatal esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Med. 2009;4(4):197–200. https://doi.org/10.4103/1817-1737.56012.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ding N, Mao Y, He J, et al. Experiences in the management of anastomotic leakages and analysis of the factors affecting leakage healing in patients with esophagogastric junction cancer. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(2):386–91. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.02.34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Gu YM, Yang YS, Shang QX, Wang WP, Yuan Y, Chen LQ. Risk factors for benign anastomotic stricture post-oesophagectomy: single-centre analysis of 702 oesophagectomies with squamous cell carcinoma. Transl Cancer Res. 2019;8(3):828–35. https://doi.org/10.21037/tcr.2019.05.06.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Yang YS, Shang QX, Yuan Y, Wu XY, Hu WP, Chen LQ. Comparison of Long-term Quality of Life in Patients with Esophageal Cancer after Ivor-Lewis, Mckeown, or Sweet Esophagectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23(2):225–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3999-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jezerskyte E, Saadeh LM, Hagens ERC, et al. Long-term health-related quality of life after McKeown and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma. Dis Esophagus. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaa022.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was unfunded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina M. Stuart MD.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

John D. Mitchell reports that he performs consulting for Intuitive Surgical, Inc., and Robert A. Meguid reports that he consults for Medtronic, Inc. Camille L. Stewart received salary support from the Early-Stage Surgeon Scientist Program, 1 March 2023–31 October 2023 (NIH/NCI, P30CA046934). Christina M. Stuart, Nicole M. Mott, Adam R. Dyas, Sara Byers, Anna K. Gergen, Benedetto Mungo, Martin D. McCarter, Simran K. Randhawa, and Elizabeth A. David report no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

COMIRB #21-3164, approved 1 September 2023.

Consent for Publication

This work was presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Meeting, 20–23 March 2024, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stuart, C.M., Mott, N.M., Dyas, A.R. et al. The Effect of Laparoscopic Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Prior to Esophagectomy on Anastomotic Stricture Rate and Comparison with Esophagectomy-Alone Controls. Ann Surg Oncol 31, 4261–4270 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-024-15096-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-024-15096-0

Keywords

Navigation