Impact of anastomotic leak vs pneumonia on failure to rescue after transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer
- PMID: 39788797
- DOI: 10.1016/j.gassur.2024.101936
Impact of anastomotic leak vs pneumonia on failure to rescue after transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer
Abstract
Background: Data about failure to rescue (FTR) after esophagectomy for cancer and its association with patient and procedure-related risk factors are limited. This study aimed to analyze such aspects, particularly focusing on the effect of pneumonia and anastomotic leak on FTR.
Methods: Patients who underwent an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for cancer between 2008 and 2022 in 2 tertiary European centers were prospectively identified. Patients were classified and compared according to the type of operation (open, laparoscopic hybrid, robotic hybrid, minimally invasive, or robotic minimally invasive). FTR was defined as in-hospital death after a major complication. Risk factors for FTR were identified using a univariate model. Mortality after pneumonia and anastomotic leak were calculated and compared between the groups.
Results: A total of 708 patients were included. There were 355 open procedures (50.1%), 204 laparoscopic hybrid procedures (28.8%), 121 hybrid robotic procedures (17.1%), 15 standard minimally invasive procedures (2.1%), and 11 robotic minimally invasive procedures (1.6%). The overall morbidity was 60.0%, and the FTR rate was 4.5%. Anastomotic leak, pneumonia, postoperative bleeding, sepsis, pulmonary embolism, arrhythmia, and need for blood transfusion were the risk factors significantly associated with in-hospital mortality (P <.05). There was no particular type of operation significantly associated with mortality (P =.42). Pneumonia- and leak-associated FTR rates did not significantly differ among the groups (P =.99).
Conclusion: Anastomotic leak and pneumonia are equally dangerous complications after esophagectomy for cancer. If performed in high-volume centers, hybrid or minimally invasive methods do not seem to negatively affect the FTR rates. Further efforts should be made to improve both tailored-approach and postoperative care.
Keywords: Anastomotic leak; Esophageal cancer; Esophagectomy; Failure to rescue; Pneumonia.
Copyright © 2025. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Similar articles
-
The impact of postoperative atrial fibrillation on complications and mortality following Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 1;15(1):22305. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-06239-8. Sci Rep. 2025. PMID: 40596337 Free PMC article.
-
Surgical outcomes after totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. A systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022 Mar;48(3):473-481. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.11.119. Epub 2021 Dec 20. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022. PMID: 34955315
-
The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events.Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(22):1-194. doi: 10.3310/hta5220. Health Technol Assess. 2001. PMID: 11532239
-
Robotic-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study from a high-volume center.J Robot Surg. 2025 Jul 22;19(1):414. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02590-0. J Robot Surg. 2025. PMID: 40696050 Free PMC article.
-
Minimally invasive vs open vs hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Dis Esophagus. 2024 Nov 28;37(12):doae086. doi: 10.1093/dote/doae086. Dis Esophagus. 2024. PMID: 39387393
Cited by
-
Risk factors associated with failure to rescue after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.Surg Endosc. 2025 Jul 14. doi: 10.1007/s00464-025-11949-1. Online ahead of print. Surg Endosc. 2025. PMID: 40659946
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical