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
. 2024 Mar 1;279(3):410-418.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006124. Epub 2023 Oct 13.

Short-term Outcomes of Different Techniques for Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Before Esophagectomy: A Network Meta-analysis

Alberto Aiolfi  1 , Davide Bona  1 , Gianluca Bonitta  1 , Luigi Bonavina  2 ; Gastric Ischemic Conditioning (GIC) International Collaborative Group
Collaborators, Affiliations

Short-term Outcomes of Different Techniques for Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Before Esophagectomy: A Network Meta-analysis

Alberto Aiolfi et al. Ann Surg. .

Abstract

Background: Ischemia at the anastomotic site plays a critical role determinant in the development of anastomosis-related complications after esophagectomy. Gastric ischemic conditioning (GIC) before esophagectomy has been described to improve the vascular perfusion at the tip of the gastric conduit with a potential effect on anastomotic leak (AL) and stenosis (AS) risk minimization. Laparoscopic (LapGIC) and angioembolization (AngioGIC) techniques have been reported.

Purpose: Compare short-term outcomes among different GIC techniques.

Materials and methods: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. One-step esophagectomy (noGIC), LapGIC, and AngioGIC were compared. Primary outcomes were AL, AS, and gastric conduit necrosis (GCN). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were used to assess relative inference.

Results: Overall, 1760 patients (14 studies) were included. Of those, 1028 patients (58.4%) underwent noGIC, 593 (33.6%) LapGIC, and 139 (8%) AngioGIC. AL was reduced for LapGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.68; 95% CrI 0.47-0.98) and AngioGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.52; 95% CrI 0.31-0.93). Similarly, AS was reduced for LapGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.32; 95% CrI 0.12-0.68) and AngioGIC versus noGIC (RR=1.30; 95% CrI 0.65-2.46). The indirect comparison, assessed with the network methodology, did not show any differences for LapGIC versus AngioGIC in terms of postoperative AL and AS risk. No differences were found for GCN, pulmonary complications, overall complications, hospital length of stay, and 30-day mortality among different treatments.

Conclusions: Compared to noGIC, both LapGIC and AngioGIC before esophagectomy seem equivalent and associated with a reduced risk for postoperative AL and AS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Kutup A, Nentwich MF, Bollschweiler E, et al. What should be the gold standard for the surgical component in the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer: transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2014;260:1016–1022.
    1. Hagens ERC, Reijntjes MA, Anderegg MCJ, et al. Risk factors and consequences of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021;112:255–263.
    1. Aiolfi A, Sozzi A, Bonitta G, et al. Linear- versus circular-stapled esophagogastric anastomosis during esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2022;407:3297–3309.
    1. Goense L, Meziani J, Ruurda JP, et al. Impact of postoperative complications on outcomes after oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg. 2019;106:111–119.
    1. Markar S, Gronnier C, Duhamel A, et al; FREGAT (French Eso-Gastric Tumors) Working Group, FRENCH (Fédération de Recherche EN CHirurgie), and AFC (Association Française de Chirurgie). The impact of severe anastomotic leak on long-term survival and cancer recurrence after surgical resection for esophageal malignancy. Ann Surg. 2015;262:972–980.

Publication types

MeSH terms