Major modifications to minimize thoracic esophago‐gastric leak and eradicate esophageal stricture after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

Abstract Background Esophagotracheal perforation is a very severe complication. However, an esophagotracheal perforation caused due to an esophageal stent after anastomotic leakage after ivor-lewis resection, is even more complex and associated with high mortality. Therefore we present a case how we managed a high esophagotracheal perforation and anastomotic leakage after ivor-lewis resection of esophageal cancer, prior treated with neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Methods Case report A 71-year old patient was transferred to our center due to an esophagotracheal perforation at the proximal stent—and at 18–20 cm from the front teeth row. The stent had been placed due to anastomotic leakage after ivor-lewis resection. The patient's history began with a squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus, treated with neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and followed by ivor-lewis esophagectomy. She developed an anastomotic leakage, which was treated with an esophageal stent. This stent perforated and caused a fistula between the esophagus and the trachea. Results After transfer to our center, we performed a tracheotomia with a tubus blocked, distal of the esophagotracheal fistula, to prevent a respiratory insufficiency. We removed the dislocated stent and induced an endosponge therapy. A prolonged healing process lead to a step-by-step decrease of the anastomotic leakage. Finally, the semicircular hole could be supplied by a fibrin sealant. We resected the fistula via cervical surgery and placed a pectoralis muscle flap between trachea and esophagus. The surgery was performed under steady neuromonitoring control. The postoperative course was uncomplicated. The patient could be extubated with spontaneous breathing. Eleven days after surgery, the patient could be discharged fully enteralised. The stomach interponate could be kept. Half a year later, our patient shows up in our regular consultation, reporting no dysphagia. Conclusion Our experience with endosponge treatment suggests that this is the first choice for successful healing of anastomotic leakage after ivor-lewis resection. A stenting of the esophagus after finding an anastomotic leakage can be considered, but is associated with a risk of further complication. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Download Full-text

Long-term outcomes after robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

Journal of Robotic Surgery ◽

10.1007/s11701-021-01219-2 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Pridvi Kandagatla ◽

Ali Hussein Ghandour ◽

Ali Amro ◽

Andrew Popoff ◽

Zane Hammoud

Keyword(s):

Long Term Outcomes ◽

Ivor Lewis ◽

Robotic Assisted ◽

Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

Download Full-text

Comparison of ventilation and cardiovascular parameters between prone thoracoscopic and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

Updates in Surgery ◽

10.1007/s13304-012-0156-1 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 64 (2) ◽

pp. 81-85 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Luigi Bonavina ◽

Letizia Laface ◽

Emmanuele Abate ◽

Michele Punturieri ◽

Emiliano Agosteo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Ivor Lewis ◽

Cardiovascular Parameters ◽

Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

Download Full-text

544 MANAGEMENT OF ACUTE ANASTOMOTIC COMPLICATIONS AFTER IVOR-LEWIS ESOPHAGECTOMY

Diseases of the Esophagus ◽

10.1093/dote/doab052.544 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

Tomas Harustiak ◽

Jiri Tvrdon ◽

Alexandr Pazdro ◽

Martin Snajdauf ◽

Hana Faltova ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Surgical Revision ◽

Esophageal Stent ◽

Individual Treatment ◽

Vacuum Therapy ◽

Type I ◽

Primary Therapy ◽

Ivor Lewis ◽

Anastomotic Complications ◽

Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy ◽

Surgical Methods

Abstract Anastomotic leak (AL) and conduit necrosis (CN) are among the most serious surgical complications after esophageal resection. Endoscopic, radiological and surgical methods are used in their treatment. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the results of the treatment of acute anastomotic complications after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in a single high-volume center. Methods We performed a retrospective audit of a consecutive cohort of 815 patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy with intrathoracic esophago-gastric anastomosis from 2005 to 2019. AL was graded according to Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group recommendation. Results There were 79 patients with AL and 6 patients with CN (10%). AL type I, II and III was diagnosed in 33 (39%), 25 (29%) and 27 (32%) patients, respectively. Esophageal stent was used in 40 patients. Primary surgical revision (with/without stent insertion) was performed in 14 patients. Reoperation was necessary overall in 25 patients (29%). Seventeen patients (20%) ended-up with esophageal diversion. Treatment with esophageal stent was successful in 28/40 patients (70%). Endoscopic vacuum-therapy was successfully used in three patients for peristent leak after stent extraction. Mortality of severe AL (type II and III) was 10/52 patients (19%). Conclusion Successful management of acute anastomotic complications requires early diagnosis and an individual treatment approach with the use of endoscopic, radiological and surgical methods. The primary attempt for anastomosis preservation using esophageal stent is desirable. Considering the clinical condition and CT finding, we recommend not to hesitate with surgical revision with debridement and drainage of pleural cavity and mediastinum. If primary therapy fails, life-saving procedure is the esophageal diversion.

Download Full-text

792 OUTCOMES AFTER TOTALLY MINIMALLY INVASIVE VERSUS HYBRID OR OPEN IVOR LEWIS ESOPHAGECTOMY: RESULTS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ESODATA STUDY GROUP.

Diseases of the Esophagus ◽

10.1093/dote/doab052.792 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

Berend Van Der Wilk ◽

Eliza R C Hagens ◽

Ben M Eyck ◽

Suzanne S Gisbertz ◽

Richard Hillegersberg ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Length Of Stay ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Anastomotic Leakage ◽

Hospital Length Of Stay ◽

Mortality Data ◽

Study Group ◽

Ivor Lewis ◽

Open Esophagectomy ◽

Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy ◽

The Impact

Abstract To compare complications following totally minimally invasive (TMIE), laparoscopically assisted (hybrid) and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer. Three randomized trials have reported benefits for minimally invasive esophagectomy. Two studies compared TMIE versus open esophagectomy and another compared hybrid versus open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Only small retrospective studies compared TMIE with hybrid Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Methods Data were used from the International Esodata Study Group assessing patients undergoing TMIE, hybrid or open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Primary outcome was pneumonia, secondary outcomes included incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage, (major) complications, length of stay, escalation of care and 90-day mortality. Data were analyzed using multivariate multilevel models. Results In total, 4733 patients were included in this study (TMIE:1472, hybrid:1364 and open:1897). Patients undergoing TMIE had lower incidence of pneumonia compared to hybrid (10.9% vs 16.3%, Odds Ratio (OR):0.56, 95%CI: 0.40–0.80) and open esophagectomy (10.9% vs 17.4%, OR:0.60, 95%CI: 0.42–0.84) and had shorter length of stay (median 10 days (IQR 8–16)) compared to hybrid (14 (11–19), p = 0.041) and open esophagectomy (11 (9–16), p = 0.027). Patients undergoing TMIE had higher rate of anastomotic leakage compared to hybrid (15.1% vs 10.7%, OR:1.47, 95%CI: 1.01–2.13) and open esophagectomy (7.3%, OR:1.73, 95%CI: 1.26–2.38). No differences were reported between hybrid and open esophagectomy. Conclusion Compared to hybrid and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, TMIE resulted in a lower pneumonia rate, a shorter hospital length of stay but a higher anastomotic leakage rate. The impact of these individual complications on survival and long-term quality of life should be further investigated.

Download Full-text

Modified Intrathoracic Esophagogastrostomy with Minimally Invasive Robot-Assisted Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Cancer

Digestive Surgery ◽

10.1159/000495361 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (3) ◽

pp. 218-225 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Wen-Ping Wang ◽

Long-Qi Chen ◽

Han-Lu Zhang ◽

Yu-Shang Yang ◽

Song-Lin He ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Minimally Invasive ◽

Circular Stapler ◽

Purse String Suture ◽

Robot Assisted ◽

Purse String ◽

Ivor Lewis ◽

Intrathoracic Anastomosis ◽

Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy ◽

Estimated Blood Loss ◽

Esophagectomy For Cancer

Background: Intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy plays an important role in minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for cancer. Intrathoracic anastomosis with robot-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (RAILE) includes hand-sewn and circular stapler methods, which remain technically challenging. In this study, we modified the techniques for intrathoracic anastomosis at RAILE, in order to simplify the complex procedures. Methods: “Side-insertion” technique was used for anvil placement and purse string suture for intrathoracic anastomosis at RAILE. Medical records for consecutive patients who had undergone robot-assisted minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for cancer between January 2015 and June 2018 were analyzed. Results: A total of consecutive 31 patients were enrolled. There was no conversion to open thoracotomy in this cohort. Mean operation duration in the robotic group was 387.4 ± 68.2 min. Median estimated blood loss was 110 mL (range 50–400 mL). Two patients (6.5%) had postoperative anastomotic leak. No postoperative reoperation was needed and there were no mortality. Six patients (19.4%) had anastomotic stricture and 2 patients of them needed endoscopic dilation. Conclusion: RAILE is safe and feasible. Our modified procedure highlighting the “side-insertion” method may simplify the process of intrathoracic anvil placement and purse string suture for anastomosis at RAILE.

Download Full-text