scholarly journals Colon interposition in the management of post-corrosive strictures

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Venanzio Porziella ◽  
Diomira Tabacco ◽  
Edoardo Zanfrini ◽  
Jessica Evangelista ◽  
Maria Letizia Vita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
P. A. Thomas ◽  
A. Gilardoni ◽  
D. Trousse ◽  
X. B. D'Journo ◽  
J.-P. Avaro ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Flávio Sabino ◽  
Marco Guimarães-Filho ◽  
Luciana Ribeiro ◽  
Daniel Fernandes ◽  
Luis Felipe Pinto

Abstract   The standard esophageal replacement after esophagectomy for cancer treatment is a gastric conduit, as it is a simpler technique than the other options available, requiring only one anastomosis. However, when the stomach is not available, a left- or right colon graft interposition can be performed. The purpose of this study was to review our experience with colon interposition following esophagectomy for cancer and assess the surgical outcomes. Methods The clinical data and surgical outcomes form patients who underwent esophagectomy with colon interposition for cancer treatment, in a single institution, between January 1990 and December 2017. The results were compared with cases with gastric reconstruction. Results From January 1990 and December 2017, 25 cases of transhiatal esophagectomy with colon interposition were identified. In the same period, 97 cases of transhiatal esophagectomy with gastric pull-up were also performed. The patient’s clinical data and surgical outcomes are presented in Table 1. The indication for performing a colon interposition was positive distal margin in 87% of cases, gastric conduit ischemia in 8,7% and prior gastric surgery in 4,3%. The most common pull-up route was the posterior mediastinum (87%). Conclusion Our results are in line with the literature and demonstrate that colon interposition after esophagectomy is feasible and, despite having a significant morbimortality, appears to be a valuable alternative for the challenging situation where the stomach is not available.


1997 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-294
Author(s):  
Masami MITANI ◽  
Yoshiyuki KUWABARA ◽  
Hiroyuki KAWAMURA ◽  
Atsushi SATOU ◽  
Kouji HATTORI ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-233
Author(s):  
R.M. Neagoe R.M. Neagoe ◽  
Daniela Sala ◽  
D. Zamfir ◽  
S. Bancu ◽  
L. Kiss

Author(s):  
Brian E. Louie ◽  
Steven R. DeMeester
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 314 ◽  
Author(s):  
JC Eze ◽  
FA Onyekwulu ◽  
IA Nwafor ◽  
K Etukokwn ◽  
O Orakwe

2018 ◽  
Vol 103 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 238-247
Author(s):  
Martin H. Hangaard ◽  
Michael B. Mortensen

Objective: The aim of this study was to report our experience with colon interposition (COI) and to compare the results with an extensive review of the COI literature. Summary of Background Data: The stomach is the first choice as an esophageal substitute following esophagectomy in cancer patients, while COI is reserved for patients where the stomach is not available or must be included in the resection due to cancer. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of cancer patients undergoing colon interposition from 2006 to 2017. Outcomes were compared with an extensive review of the literature published between 2000 and 2017. Results: A total of 13 patients underwent planned COI. Mortality was zero and overall morbidity was 53%; 4 patients suffered from leakage and 2 patients from strictures. None of the patients suffered from necrosis of the interponat and there was no need for subsequent redundancy operations. The extensive review identified 23 publications. Overall study grading was low (grade C). Only 3 studies were prospective, no randomized studies were found, and many outcomes were poorly defined. The rates for 30-day and in-hospital mortality were 1% and 2%, respectively. Overall morbidity was 43%. The reported number of leakages, strictures, necrosis of the interponat, and redundancy operations varied between 0% and 50%, 0% and 21%, 0% and 9%, and 0% and 2%, respectively. Conclusions: COI is a complex technique that is necessary in a relatively small group of selected patients after esophagectomy for cancer. Prospective and comparative studies with strict outcome definitions, long-term follow up, and patient reported outcome measures are lacking.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document