There is no correlation between a delayed gastric conduit emptying and the occurrence of an anastomotic leakage after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy

Introduction Esophagectomy is the gold standard in the surgical therapy of esophageal cancer. It is either performed thoracoabdominal with a intrathoracic anastomosis or in proximal cancers with a three-incision esophagectomy and cervical reconstruction. Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) is the most common functional postoperative disorder after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (IL). Pneumonia is significantly more often in patients with DGCE. It remains unclear if DGCE anastomotic leakage (AL) is associated. Aim of our study is to analyze, if AL is more likely to happen in patients with a DGCE. Patients and methods 816 patients were included. All patients have had an IL due to esophageal/esophagogastric-junction cancer between 2013 and 2018 in our center. Intrathoracic esophagogastric end-to-side anastomosis was performed with a circular stapling device. The collective has been divided in two groups depending on the occurrence of DGCE. The diagnosis DGCE was determined by clinical and radiologic criteria in accordance with current international expert consensus. Results 27.7% of all patients suffered from DGCE postoperatively. Female patients had a significantly higher chance to suffer from DGCE than male patients (34.4% vs. 26.2% vs., p = 0.040). Pneumonia was more common in patients with DGCE (13.7% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.025), furthermore hospitalization was longer in DGCE patients (median 17 days vs. 14d, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the rate of type II anastomotic leakage, (5.8% in both groups DGCE). All patients with ECCG type II AL (n = 47; 5.8%) were treated successfully by endoluminal/endoscopic therapy. The subgroup analysis showed that ASA ≥ III (7.6% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.05) and the histology squamous cell carcinoma (9.8% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.01) were independent risk factors for the occurrence of an AL. Conclusion Our study confirms that DGCE after IL is a common finding in a standardized collective of patients in a high-volume center. This functional disorder is associated with a higher rate of pneumonia and a prolonged hospital stay. Still, there is no association between DGCE and the occurrence of an AL after esophagectomy. The hypothesis, that an DGCE results in a higher pressure on the anastomosis and therefore to an AL in consequence, can be refuted. DGCE is not a pathogenetic factor for an AL.

Comparative analysis of long-term oncologic outcomes for minimally invasive and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a propensity score matched observational study

Background Locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is typically treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy (trimodality therapy). We compared the long-term oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (M-ILE) cohort with a propensity score weighted cohort of open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (O-ILE) cases after trimodality therapy. Methods This is a retrospective review of 223 patients diagnosed with esophageal carcinoma who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by M-ILE or O-ILE from April 2009 to February 2019. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjustment was used to balance the baseline characteristics between study groups. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were calculated for overall survival and recurrence-free survival comparing the two groups. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine predictive variables for overall and recurrence-free survival. Results The IPTW cohort included patients with esophageal carcinoma who underwent M-ILE (n = 142) or O-ILE (n = 68). The overall rate of postoperative adverse events was not significantly different after IPTW adjustment between the O-ILE and M-ILE trimodality groups (53.4% vs. 39.2%, p = 0.089). The 3-year overall survival (OS) for the M-ILE group was 59.4% (95% CI: 49.8–67.8) compared to 55.7% (95% CI: 39.2–69.4) for the O-ILE group (p = 0.670). The 3-year recurrence-free survival for the M-ILE group was 59.9% (95% CI: 50.2–68.2) compared to 61.6% (95% CI: 41.9–76.3) for the O-ILE group (p = 0.357). A complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation was significantly predictive of improved OS and RFS. Conclusion The overall and recurrence-free survival rates for M-ILE were not significantly different from O-ILE for esophageal carcinoma after trimodality therapy. Complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation was predictive of improved overall and recurrence- free survival.

The effect of age on short-term and mid-term outcomes after thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background The number of elderly patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer rises. Current information about outcomes in elderly patients undergoing thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of age on short-and mid-term outcomes after thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Methods A retrospective review of 188 patients with esophageal cancer undergoing thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy between August 2014 and July 2019 was performed. Patients were divided into patients aged > 75 years (elderly group (EG), n = 37) and patients ≤ 75 years (younger group (YG), n = 151) and matched using propensity-score matching. Baseline characteristics, length of hospital stay, mortality and major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade III) were compared. Results After matching 74 patients remained (n = 37 in each group). Postoperatively, no significant differences in major and overall complications, intra-hospital and 30-day mortality, disease-free or overall survival up to 3 years after surgery were noted. The incidence of pulmonary complications (65% vs. 38%) and pneumonia (54% vs. 30%) was significantly higher and the median hospital length of stay (12 vs. 14 days) significantly longer in the EG versus YG. Conclusion Thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomies resulted in acceptable postoperative major morbidity and mortality without compromising 3-years overall and disease-free survival in elderly compared to younger patients with esophageal cancer. However, the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications was higher in patients aged over 75 years.

Variations in treatment of an anastomotic leakage after Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

Background: Anastomotic Leakage (AL) after Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (ILE) is a severe complication that often needs immediate treatment. However, there is no consensus on the optimal treatment. The aim of this study was to describe the outcomes of the different treatment options in patients with either contained or uncontained AL after ILE. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients that developed AL after ILE in three high volume hospitals. Treatment was based on local preference. Endoscopic and surgical treatment were compared for patients with either contained (leakage confined to the mediastinum) or uncontained AL (leakage with intrapleural manifestations). Results: In total, 73 patients with an AL were included. A contained leak was observed in 39 patients. Twenty-five patients (64%) underwent an endoscopic approach that was successful in 19 patients (76%); fourteen patients (36%) underwent a surgical approach that was successful in 11 patients (79%). Significantly more patients were (re)admitted to the ICU in the surgical group; other outcomes were similar. An uncontained leak was observed in 34 patients. Endoscopic treatment was chosen in 14 patients (41%) and was successful in 10 patients (71%). A surgical approach was performed in 20 patients (59%) and was successful in 12 patients (60%). (Re) admission rate to the ICU was significantly higher in the surgical group, other outcomes were similar. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that there is high variability in the treatment of AL after esophagectomy. Surgical and endoscopic techniques are both successfully used for patients with either contained or uncontained leakages. However, more research is necessary before a treatment algorithm can be developed. Keywords: esophageal cancer; esophageal surgery; minimally invasive surgery; anastomotic leakage; endoscopic procedures.