Literature DB >> 27217296

Complex Esophageal Reconstruction Procedures Have Acceptable Outcomes Compared With Routine Esophagectomy.

Jessica M Moore1, Craig M Hooker1, Daniela Molena1, Benedetto Mungo1, Malcolm V Brock1, Richard J Battafarano1, Stephen C Yang2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Complex esophageal reconstruction (CER) is defined as restoring esophageal continuity in a previously operated field, using a nongastric conduit, or after esophageal diversion. This study compares the outcomes of CER with non-CER (NCER), which uses an undisturbed stomach for reconstruction.
METHODS: This single-institution retrospective cohort study compares 75 CERs with 75 NCERs from 1995 to 2014 that were matched for cancer versus benign disease. Distributions of demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and complications were compared between CER and NCER. Odds of mortality at 30 and 90 days were calculated with logistic regression. Overall survival was illustrated with Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression.
RESULTS: Although patients were similar in age, sex, and preoperative comorbidities, more non-white patients underwent CER (p = 0.04). Most NCER patients had adenocarcinoma (44%) or Barrett's high-grade dysplasia (39%); most CER patients had other benign disease (44%) or squamous cell carcinoma (24%, p < 0.01). CER had statistically significantly higher rates of reoperation, pneumonia, infection, and gastrointestinal complications, and longer median length of stay than NCER. Odds of mortality for CER and NCER at 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 1.0, 95% CI: 0.1 to 16.3), 90 days (OR 2.6, 95% CI: 0.5 to 13.9) and overall (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI: 0.9 to 2.7) were not statistically significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with NCER, CER patients had higher rates of return to the operating room, more postoperative infections and gastrointestinal complications, and longer length of stay. However, 30-day, 90-day, and overall survival were similar. CER should be offered to patients with acceptable risks and anticipated long-term survival.
Copyright © 2016 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27217296     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.02.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  5 in total

1.  Laparoscopic-assisted Esophageal Bypass for T4b Esophageal Tumor as a Bridge to Definitive Therapy.

Authors:  Spyridon Davakis; Athanasios Syllaios; Efstratia Mpaili; Theodoros Liakakos; Alexandros Charalabopoulos
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.155

2.  Beware of gastric tube in esophagectomy after gastric radiotherapy: A case report.

Authors:  Can Yurttas; Doerte Wichmann; Cihan Gani; Malte N Bongers; Stephan Singer; Christian Thiel; Alfred Koenigsrainer; Karolin Thiel
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 1.534

3.  Oesophageal reconstruction with a reversed gastric conduit for a complex oesophageal cancer patient: a case report.

Authors:  Yanbo Yang; Lin Ma
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2022-06-11       Impact factor: 2.030

4.  Managing esophagocutaneous fistula after secondary gastric pull-up: A case report.

Authors:  Johan F Lock; Stanislaus Reimer; Sebastian Pietryga; Rafael Jakubietz; Sven Flemming; Alexander Meining; Christoph-Thomas Germer; Florian Seyfried
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Conduit necrosis following esophagectomy: An up-to-date literature review.

Authors:  Antonios Athanasiou; Mairead Hennessy; Eleftherios Spartalis; Benjamin H L Tan; Ewen A Griffiths
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-03-27
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.