Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Sep;23(9):2110-6.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0233-1. Epub 2008 Dec 6.

Classification and early recognition of gastric conduit failure after minimally invasive esophagectomy

Affiliations

Classification and early recognition of gastric conduit failure after minimally invasive esophagectomy

Darmarajah Veeramootoo et al. Surg Endosc. 2009 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Esophagectomy is a high-risk procedure, with significant morbidity resulting from gastric conduit failure. Early recognition and management of these complications is essential. This study aimed to investigate the clinical value of routine investigations after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIO) and to propose a classification system for gastric conduit failure.

Methods: For esophagogastric resection, MIO is the procedure of choice in the authors' unit. Standard postoperative care similar to that for open esophagectomy is undertaken on a specialist ward. Routine investigations include daily assessment of C-reactive protein (CRP), white cell count (WCC), and a contrast swallow on postoperative day (POD) 5. The authors performed a retrospective analysis to assess the utility of these tests.

Results: Of a prospective cohort of 50 patients from April 2004 to July 2006, 26 (52%) had an uneventful recovery (U), 24 (48%) experienced complications (C) of varying nature and severity, and 1 died (2%). All the patients demonstrated a transient abnormal rise in CRP until POD 3. In group U, the levels then fell, but in group C, they remained elevated (POD 5: U = 96, C = 180; p < 0.01). This discrepancy trend was further exaggerated in the nine patients with gastric conduit failure (POD 5: GC = 254; p < 0.01), whereas contrast swallow failed to identify this complication in six patients. Simple anastomotic leaks (type 1, n = 4) were managed conservatively. Patients with conduit tip necrosis (type 2, n = 3) and complete conduit ischemia (type 2, n = 2) were managed by repeat thoracotomy and either refashioning of the conduit or take-down and cervical esophagostomy. None of the patients with conduit failure died.

Conclusion: Postoperative CRP monitoring is a highly effective, simple method for the early recognition of gastric conduit failure. This new system of classification provides a successful guide to conservative management or revisional surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Am J Surg. 2001 Jun;181(6):534-9 - PubMed
    1. Br J Anaesth. 2001 May;86(5):611-3 - PubMed
    1. Ann Surg. 2007 Feb;245(2):241-6 - PubMed
    1. Br J Surg. 2004 Aug;91(8):1015-9 - PubMed
    1. J Am Coll Surg. 2002 Mar;194(3):285-97 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances