| Literature DB >> 28070231 |
Talat Waseem1, Asad Azim1, Muhammad Hasham Ashraf1, Khawaja M Azim1.
Abstract
Select group of patients with concurrent esophageal and gastric stricturing secondary to corrosive intake requires colonic or free jejunal transfer. These technically demanding reconstructions are associated with significant complications and have up to 18% ischemic conduit necrosis. Following corrosive intake, up to 30% of such patients have stricturing at the pyloro-duodenal canal area only and rest of the stomach is available for rather less complex and better perfused gastrointestinal reconstruction. Here we describe an alternative technique where we utilize stomach following distal gastric resection along with Roux-en-Y reconstruction instead of colonic or jejunal interposition. This neo-conduit is potentially superior in terms of perfusion, lower risk of gastro-esophageal anastomotic leakage and technical ease as opposed to colonic and jejunal counterparts. We have utilized the said technique in three patients with acceptable postoperative outcome. In addition this technique offers a feasible reconstruction plan in patients where colon is not available for reconstruction due to concomitant pathology. Utility of this technique may also merit consideration for gastroesophageal junction tumors.Entities:
Keywords: Colonic interposition; Corrosive strictures; Roux-en-Y augmented gastric advancement
Year: 2016 PMID: 28070231 PMCID: PMC5183919 DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v8.i12.766
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg
Figure 1Barium study showing concurrent esophageal and gastric stenosis at pyloric canal level. Please note the distended stomach.
Figure 2Roux-en-Y augmented gastric advancement with schematic reconstruction plan. A: Distended stomach; B: Esophageal specimen following standard transhiatal esophagectomy; C: Standard augmented gastric advancement reconstruction before esophageal anastomosis lying on the chest; D: Gastro-esophageal anastomosis in the neck.
Predicted potential comparison of the two techniques for esophageal replacement
| Vascular supply and conduit necrosis rates | Good; conduit necrosis rate 2.4%-18% | Potentially excellent; conduit necrosis rate 2%-5% |
| Mild mucosal ischemia | Ischemic colitis (3%) | Gastric erosions |
| Gastroesophageal and colo-esophageal reflux rates | Low (4%-5%) | Low |
| Conduit reservoir capacity | Acceptable | Better |
| Postprandial conduit fullness | Less | More |
| Probability of cervical esophageal anastomotic leakage rate | Low | Low |
| Probability of postoperative esophageal anastomotic stricture formation | Low | Higher |
| Potential complications | Higher probability of anastomotic leakage in colonic anastomosis | Higher probability of gastric erosions postoperatively due to retention gastritis |