Ischemic Conditioning in the Right Colon and Terminal Ileum: An Experimental Rat Model

Introduction: Preoperative gastric ischemic conditioning (IC) improves the outcome of esophageal replacement gastroplasty and is associated with low morbidity. However, when the stomach cannot be used for esophageal replacement, a colonic replacement is required. The study aim was to assess the viability of right colon and terminal ileum IC in a rat model, the histological damage/recovery sequence, and determine if neovascularization is a potential adaptive mechanism. Methods: The study was conducted in Rattus norvegicus with ileocolic vascular ligation. Seven groups of animals were established (six rats per group) with groups defined by the date of their post-IC euthanasia (+1, +3, +6, +10, +15, and +21 days). Comparisons were made with a sham group. Viability of the model was defined as <10% of transmural necrosis. The evaluation of histological damage used the Chiu score in hematoxylin and eosin sections of paraffin-embedded specimens with CD31 immunohistochemical assessment of neovascularization by the median of submucosal vessel counts in five high-magnification fields. Results: Transmural colon necrosis occurred in 1/36 animals (2.78%) with no animal demonstrating transmural ileal necrosis. The maximum damage was observed in the colon on +1 day post-IC (average Chiu score 1.67, P = 0.015), whereas in the ileum, it was on days +1, +3, and +6 (average Chiu score 1.5, 1.3, and 1.17; P = 0.015, 0.002, and 0.015, respectively). In the +21-day group, histological recovery was complete in the colon in four (66.7%) of the six animals and in the ileum in five (83.3%) of six animals. There were no significant differences in quantitative neovascularization in any of the groups when compared with the sham group or when comparisons were made between groups. Conclusions: The tested animal model for IC of the colon and terminal ileum appeared to be feasible. Histological damage was maximal between the 1st and 3rd day following IC, but by day 21, recovery was complete in two-thirds of the rats. There was no evidence in this preliminary IC model that would suggest neovascularization as an adaptive mechanism.

490 COLONIC INTERPOSITION FOR ESOPHAGEAL REPLACEMENT AFTER ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR CANCER—A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE

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.

Erudition after neonatal gastric transposition for esophageal atresia at 10 years of follow-up

Background: Gastric transposition (GT) is a well-established procedure of esophageal re­placement (ER) for children with esophageal atresia. ER in the neonatal period is sparsely reported. We report characteristics of children who have undergone neonatal GT and have completed ten years of follow-up. Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted which included all children who under­went neonatal GT at the institute and have completed a follow-up of at least 10-years. An­thropometry, oral contrast study, Hepatobiliary Scintigraphy, Gastroesophageal reflux study, Gastric emptying test, spirometry, and blood investigations were done for all the children. Results: Four children (three male and one female) were included in the study. The mean age at ER was 5.3 ±2.2 days with a mean birth-weight of 2.43 ±0.13 kg. Two children had prima­ry GT, while the other two had GT following a leak in primary anastomosis. During the mean follow-up of 180.25 ±43.5 months, none of the children required esophageal dilatation or other surgical intervention or procedures. All children were below 3rd centile for weight-for-age while all except one were below 50th centile for height-for-age. There was no stricture on oral contrast study, however, one child had grade III reflux on GER scan. Persistent duode­nogastric reflux on HIDA scan was seen in one child. Three children had restrictive parame­ters on spirometry. Symptomatically, all reported poor weight gain, one had left vocal cord palsy with hoarseness, and one had chest-wall protuberance. Conclusions: Neonatal gastric transposition is a feasible alternative to delayed esophageal replacement for neonates with esophageal atresia with limited complications.

Colonic interposition for recurrent Gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma of stomach: a case report

Introduction: Gastric cancer is a major cause of cancer death worldwide. Potential curative treatment for gastric cancer is radical gastrectomy. The reasons for local recurrence could be many like inadequate margin at the time of resection, biology of the disease, bad patient compliance. Esophagogastrectomy with colonic interposition may be required in case of distal esophageal carcinoma, carcinoma of proximal stomach and also in esophagogastric anastomotic recurrence, especially when the stomach is not suitable or available. Case description: A 30-year-old female, who had undergone proximal partial gastrectomy about 14 months back for poorly differentiated mucinous adenocarcinoma of stomach, was admitted with a 20 days history of dysphagia which was initially for solid food but later progressed causing difficulty in swallowing liquid as well. In past 14 months patient had undergone 6 cycles of chemotherapy. Transhiatal esophagectomy with interposition of right colon with terminal ileum with end to end anastomosis of oesophagus and ileal ends followed by colojejunostomy and ileocolostomy with FJ placement. Conclusion: When enough stomach remains it can be used as an esophageal replacement. However, when the stomach cannot be used due to more extensive primary disease or like in this case, needs to be resected due to recurrence of the disease, the interposed colon or jejunum needs to be used for esophageal reconstruction.