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
. 2025 Sep 25:S0022-5223(25)00843-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2025.09.032. Online ahead of print.

Salvage Esophageal Reconstruction with Colonic Conduit: A Single Center 25-Year Experience

Affiliations
Free article

Salvage Esophageal Reconstruction with Colonic Conduit: A Single Center 25-Year Experience

John O Barron et al. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. .
Free article

Abstract

Objective: Colonic interposition restores alimentary continuity after esophagectomy when a gastric conduit is unavailable, but its use has been limited by concerns about morbidity and functional outcomes. Hence, we aimed to assess our 25-year institutional experience, including perioperative outcomes, a subset with patient-reported outcomes, and a contemporary cohort treated with middle-colic microvascular "supercharging" to augment perfusion.

Methods: From 1/2000 to 6/2024, 99 patients underwent substernal colonic interposition. Endpoints included perioperative outcomes, post-operative symptoms, assessed by Cleveland Clinic Esophageal Questionnaire (CEQ), and overall survival estimated by Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: Median age was 61 [47, 73] years. Forty-eight (48%) patients had esophageal cancer. An inferior mesenteric artery-based transverse colon segment was used in 83 (84%). Sixteen (16%) underwent supercharge. Thirty-day mortality was 5%. One patient with supercharge (6.3%, 68% CI 2.3%-16%), and 36 without (43%, CI 38%-49%), developed a cervical anastomotic leak (P = 0.004). Among 18 patients with CEQ, most symptoms were experienced never or rarely; weekly postprandial diarrhea and bloating were the most common symptoms, reported by 10 (56%) and 9 (50%) patients, respectively. Median CEQ T scores for each symptom domain ranged from 42-56 following colon interposition vs 40-47 following gastric conduit. Overall survival with and without esophageal cancer was 25% vs 66% at 10 years (P<.0001).

Conclusions: Colonic interposition historically carried substantial short-term morbidity due to sequelae of frequent anastomotic leak. Present day, this can be mitigated with microvascular supercharge and a standardized multidisciplinary approach, warranting routine use. Contradicting conventional wisdom, long-term functional outcomes are similar to patients with a gastric conduit.

Keywords: colonic interposition; esophageal cancer; esophagectomy; supercharging.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources