The effect of early oral feeding after subtotal esophagectomy with immediate esophageal reconstruction on the patients’ nutritional status: randomized single-center study.

Background: The efficiency of early oral feeding (EOF) in the postoperative period is well known. Though in the esophagus surgery doctors still prefer another types of nutritional support after esophagectomy (EE) with immediate gastric tube reconstruction. Aims: to improve the results of patients treatment after EE with gastric tube reconstruction by choosing the method of nutritional support and to evaluate nutritional status of the patients with EOF. Materials and methods: weve conducted prospective single-center randomized study. Subtotal esophagectomy with immediate gastric tube reconstruction was performed to 60 patients. In the postoperative period we evaluated the results of treatment, the frequency and severity of complications, as well as anthropometric and laboratory indicators of the nutritional status before the operation, on 1, 3 and 6 postoperative day (POD). Results: Patients without high risk of malnutrition were randomly divided in 2 groups: main group (n=30) starting EOF on the 1 POD and control group (n=30) that remained nil by mouth and got parenteral feeding within 4 POD. The patients of EOF group had statistically significant earlier gas discharge (2[2;3] POD vs 4[3;6] POD, р = 0,000042) and stool appearance (3[2;4] POD vs 5[4;7] POD, р = 0,000004). There is a tendency of reduction of the duration of postoperative hospitalization in EOF group (8[7;9] POD vs 9[8;9] POD, р=0,13). EOF does not affect on frequency (46,6% vs 53,3%, р=0,66) and character of postoperative complications. After evaluation of the parameters of nutritional status we found statistically significant decrease of prealbumin level on 3 POD in EOF group (0,17 [0,13;0,21] vs 0,2 [0,16;0,34], р=0,03) of due to inability to compensate daily calorie needs in the first days after the operation. At 6 POD prealbumin became the same in both groups. There were no other significant differences between the groups. Conclusions: EOF after EE with immediate gastric tube reconstruction is safe and effective. EOF doesnt increase the frequency of anastomotic insufficiency and other complications.

670 THE STERNO-TRACHEAL DISTANCE IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR OF ANASTOMOTIC LEAKAGE OF RETROSTERNAL GASTRIC TUBE RECONSTRUCTION AFTER ESOPHAGECTOMY

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a serious complication after esophagectomy. The retrosternal (RS) route has been selected majorly to reduce reflux and related pneumonia and considering mediastinal recurrences. AL has been developed more in RS than posterior mediastinal (PM) route reconstruction. Therefore, we suspected the sterno-tracheal distance (STD) might be related to AL and started the selection according to the STD from 2009. Methods A total of 221 patients who underwent a sub total esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction during January 2004—April 2017 were investigated. The patients were classified into the 'after STD selection' (A; n = 144) group and the 'before STD selection' (B, n = 77) group. The incidences of and the risk factors for AL between the two groups were compared. Results The incidence of AL was high in the B group (18.2%), and 78.6% of the patients who developed AL were treated with RS route reconstruction. The median STDs of the patients with AL and no AL were 10.3 mm and 14.5 mm, respectively (p = 0.001). These results demonstrated that the STD was a risk factor for AL in RS route. Based on these results, 13 mm was set as the cutoff value. After STD selection, the median STD increased from 14.0 mm to 17.3 mm (p = 0.001), and the incidence of AL decreased significantly from 26.2% to 11.1% in RS route (p = 0.037). Conclusion The STD was the independent risk factor for AL in the RS route. RS route reconstruction should be avoided for the patients with STD <13 mm.

718 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INTRACORPOREAL AND EXTRACORPOREAL GASTRIC TUBE RECONSTRUCTION AFTER ESOPHAGECTOMY: IS THERE A BETTER WAY?

Introduction Esophagectomy remains good option to curative intent for esophageal carcinoma. However, quality of life for post-operative symptoms such as reflux, gastric emptying delayed and dysphagia is on debate. Some studies advocate relations between those symptoms to gastric tube conformation and discrepancies between intra and extracorporeal gastric tube construction. We aimed to analyze differences between both methods. Methods During 2014–2020, patients underwent to esophagectomy by thoracoscopic approach with cervical anastomosis (McKeown procedure). The abdominal part was performed by totally laparoscopic (group A) or hybrid (group B) hand-assisted gastric tubulization. Clinical parameters, symptoms of reflux, gastric tube evaluated by tomography, post-operative endoscopic findings were assessed and compared between groups. Multivariable analysis was performed. Results 36 group A and 56 group B, 55 (59.7%) were squamous cell carcinoma and 60 (66.6%) did neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Mean follow-up was 32 months. Group A had more gastric tube diameter (p < 0.001), alimentary stasis (p < 0.001), redundant conformation (p < 0.05) and distant from axial central point of the thorax (p < 0.05); all evaluated by tomography. And also, more symptoms of reflux and gastric empty delay by reflux symptoms index (RSI) (p < 0.001); and numbers of esophagitis grade B and C by upper endoscopy (p < 0.01). After multivariable analysis, intracorporeal (p < 0.001) and diameter more than 4.2 cm (p < 0.01) was related to worst RSI. Conclusion The intracorporeal gastric tube reconstruction may lead wider gastric tube conformation, which might be related to gastric empty delay, resulting in intense reflux symptoms confirmed by upper endoscopy.

Proximal gastrectomy with gastric tube reconstruction or jejunal interposition reconstruction in upper-third gastric cancer: which offers better short-term surgical outcomes?

Objective Proximal gastrectomy acts as a function-preserving operation for upper-third gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term surgical outcomes between proximal gastrectomy with gastric tube reconstruction and proximal gastrectomy with jejunal interposition reconstruction in upper-third gastric cancer. Methods A retrospective review of 301 patients who underwent proximal gastrectomy with jejunal interposition (JI) or gastric tube (GT) at Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital between June 2007 and December 2016 was performed. The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and Visick grade were used to evaluate postgastrectomy syndromes. Gastrointestinal fiberoscopy was used to evaluate the prevalence and severity of reflux esophagitis based on the Los Angeles (LA) classification system. Results The JI group had a longer operation time than the GT group (220 ± 52 vs 182 ± 50 min), but no significant difference in blood loss was noted. Compared to the GT group, the Visick grade and GSRS score were significantly higher. Reflux esophagitis was significantly increased in the GT group compared with the JI group. Conclusion Proximal gastrectomy is well tolerated with excellent short-term outcomes in patients with upper-third gastric cancer. Compared with GT construction, JI construction has clear functional advantages and may provide better quality of life for patients with upper-third gastric cancer.

Proximal Gastrectomy with Gastric Tube Reconstruction or Jejunal Interposition Reconstruction in the Upper Third Gastric Cancer: Which is Better for the Surgical Short-Term Outcomes.

Objective: Proximal gastrectomy was acted as a function-preserving operation for upper third gastric cancer. The aim of this study is to compare the surgical short-term outcomes between proximal gastrectomy with gastric tube reconstruction and proximal gastrectomy with Jejunal interposition reconstruction in the upper third gastric cancer. Methods: A retrospective review of 301 patients who underwent proximal gastrectomy with jejunal interposition (JI) or gastric tube (GT) at the Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital between June 2007 and December 2016 was performed. The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and Visick grade were used to evaluate the post-gastrectomy syndromes. The gastrointestinal fiberoscopy was used to evaluate the prevalence and severity of reflux esophagitis by Los Angeles (LA) classification system. Results: The JI group had a longer operation time than GT group (220±52 vs 182±50 min), whereas there was no significant difference in blood loss. Compared to the GT group, the Visick grade and GSRS score were significantly higher than that of the JI group. The reflux esophagitis of GT group was significantly higher than that of the JI group. Conclusion: Proximal gastrectomy is well tolerated, with excellent short-outcomes in patients with upper third gastric cancer . C ompared with GT construction, JI construction has clear functional advantages and may provide better quality of life for patients with upper third gastric cancer.

Technique of open and minimally invasive intrathoracic reconstruction following esophagectomy—an expert consensus based on a modified Delphi process

Summary Background: In recent years, minimally invasive Ivor Lewis (IL) esophagectomy with high intrathoracic anastomosis has emerged as surgical standard of care for esophageal cancer in expert centers. Alongside this process, many divergent technical aspects of this procedure have been devised in different centers. This study aims at achieving international consensus on the surgical steps of IL reconstruction using Delphi methodology. Methods: The expert panel consisted of specialized esophageal surgeons from 8 European countries. During a two-round Delphi process, a detailed analysis and consensus on key steps of intrathoracic gastric tube reconstruction (IL esophagectomy) was performed. Results: Response rates in Delphi rounds 1 and 2 were 100% (22 of 22 experts) and 83.3% (20 of 24 experts), respectively. Three essential technical areas of intrathoracic gastric tube reconstruction were identified: first, vascularization of the gastric conduit, second, gastric mobilization, tube formation and pull-up, and third, anastomotic technique. In addition, 3 main techniques for minimally invasive intrathoracic anastomosis are currently practiced: (i) end-to-side circular stapled, (ii) end-to-side double stapling, and (iii) side-to-side linear stapled technique. The step-by-step procedural analysis unveiled common approaches but also different expert practice. Conclusion: This precise technical description may serve as a clinical guideline for intrathoracic reconstruction after esophagectomy. In addition, the results may aid to harmonize the technical evolution of this complex surgical procedure and thereby facilitate surgical training.