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
. 2022 Nov 17:11:26-32.
doi: 10.1016/j.sopen.2022.11.002. eCollection 2023 Jan.

Consequences of anastomotic leaks after minimally invasive esophagectomy: A single-center experience

Affiliations

Consequences of anastomotic leaks after minimally invasive esophagectomy: A single-center experience

Grigor S Simitian et al. Surg Open Sci. .

Abstract

Background: Anastomotic leak (AL) after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a well-described source of morbidity for patients undergoing surgical treatment of esophageal neoplasm. With improved early recognition and endoscopic management techniques, the long-term impact remains unclear.

Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent MIE for esophageal neoplasm between January 2015 and June 2021 at a single institution. Cohorts were stratified by development of AL and subsequent management. Baseline demographics, perioperative data, and post-operative outcomes were examined.

Results: During this period, 172 MIEs were performed, with 35 of 172 (20.3%) complicated by an AL. Perioperative factors independently associated with AL were post-operative blood transfusion (leak rate 52.9% versus 16.8%; p = 0.0017), incompleteness of anastomotic rings (75.0% vs 19.1%; p = 0.027), and receiving neoadjuvant therapy (18.5% vs 30.8%; p < 0.0001). Inferior short-term outcomes associated with AL included number of esophageal dilations in the first post-operative year (1.40 vs 0.46, p = 0.0397), discharge disposition to a location other than home (22.9% vs 8.8%, p = 0.012), length of hospital stay (17.7 days vs 9.6 days; p = 0.002), and time until jejunostomy tube removal (134 days vs 79 days; p = 0.0023). There was no significant difference in overall survival between patients with or without an AL at 1 year (79% vs 83%) or 5 years (50% vs 47%) (overall log rank p = 0.758).

Conclusions: In this large single-center series of MIEs, AL was associated with inferior short-term outcomes including hospital length of stay, discharge disposition other than to home, and need for additional endoscopic procedures, without an accompanying impact on 1-year or 5-year survival.

Key message: In this large, single-center series of minimally invasive esophagectomies, anastomotic leak was associated with worse short-term outcomes including hospital length of stay, discharge disposition other than to home, and need for additional endoscopic procedures, but was not associated with worse long-term survival. The significant association between neoadjuvant therapy and decreased leak rates is difficult to interpret, given the potential for confounding factors, thus careful attention to modifiable pre- and peri-operative patient factors associated with anastomotic leak is warranted.

Keywords: Anastomotic leak; Esophageal cancer; Minimally invasive; Outcomes; Risk factor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no declarations or conflicts of interest by any authors of this manuscript.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT Diagram for retrospective review of minimally-invasive esophagectomy patients at a single institution.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan–Meier analysis of survival for patients who underwent minimally-invasive esophagectomy at a single institution between Jan 2016 and Jun 2021 (n = 172) patients stratified by AL rate (overall log-rank p = 0.758).

References

    1. Corona E., Yang L., Esrailian E., Ghassemi K.A., Conklin J.L., May F.P. Trends in esophageal cancer mortality and stage at diagnosis by race and ethnicity in the United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2021;32(8):883–894. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zhang Y. Epidemiology of esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(34):5598. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Uhlenhopp D.J., Then E.O., Sunkara T., Gaduputi V. Epidemiology of esophageal cancer: update in global trends, etiology and risk factors. Clin J Gastroenterol. 2020;13(6):1010–1021. - PubMed
    1. Gottlieb-Vedi E., Kauppila J.H., Mattsson F., Lindblad M., Nilsson M., Lagergren P., et al. Long-term survival in esophageal cancer after minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to open esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2021;276(6):e744–e748. - PubMed
    1. Luketich J.D., Pennathur A., Franchetti Y., Catalano P.J., Swanson S., Sugarbaker D.J., et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: results of a prospective phase II multicenter trial-the eastern cooperative oncology group (E2202) study. Ann Surg. 2015;261(4):702–707. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources