| Literature DB >> 28983231 |
Masaki Ohi1, Yuji Toiyama1, Yasuhiko Mohri1, Susumu Saigusa1, Takashi Ichikawa1, Tadanobu Shimura1, Hiromi Yasuda1, Yoshiki Okita1, Shigeyuki Yoshiyama1, Minako Kobayashi2, Toshimitsu Araki1, Yasuhiro Inoue1, Masato Kusunoki1.
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS AND AIM: Anastomotic leak (AL) following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer (EC) remains an important cause of prolonged hospitalization and impaired quality of life. Recently, indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescein imaging has been used to evaluate the gastric conduit blood supply during EC surgery. Although several factors have been reported to be associated with AL, no studies have evaluated the relationships between risk factors for AL, including ICG fluorescein imaging. The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk factors associated with AL following esophagectomy and to evaluate the impact of ICG fluorescein imaging of the gastric conduit during EC surgery.Entities:
Keywords: Anastomotic leak; Esophagogastric anastomosis; Indocyanine green fluorescein imaging
Year: 2017 PMID: 28983231 PMCID: PMC5603633 DOI: 10.1007/s10388-017-0585-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Esophagus ISSN: 1612-9059 Impact factor: 4.230
Fig. 1Intraoperative view of ICG fluorescence imaging of the gastric conduit. a Regions that were visualized between 15 and 40 s after ICG injection were categorized as rapid perfusion areas (left side arrow), and regions that were not visualized after injection were categorized as low perfusion areas (right side arrow). b Regions that were visualized between 40 and 60 s after ICG injection were categorized as slow perfusion areas (left side arrow), and regions that were not visualized were categorized as low perfusion areas (right side arrow). Vascular territories with rapid, slow, and low perfusion areas were identified about 15–60 s after injection. We defined rapid or slow perfusion areas as sufficient perfusion areas and low perfusion areas as insufficient perfusion areas
Characteristic of the study population (n = 120)
| Variables | Number | Median (25th percentile, 75th percentile) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 101 (84.2%) | |
| Female | 19 (15.8%) | |
| Age (years) | 68 (63, 74) | |
| ASA classification | ||
| 1 | 55 (45.8%) | |
| ≥2 | 65 (54.2%) | |
| Tumor location | ||
| Upper | 11 (9.2%) | |
| Middle | 55 (45.8%) | |
| Lower | 54 (45%) | |
| Pathological T | ||
| T0, T1a, T1b, T2 | 80 (66.7%) | |
| T3, T4 | 40 (33.3%) | |
| Pathological N | ||
| Absent | 64 (53.3%) | |
| Present | 56 (46.7%) | |
| Lymphatic invasion | ||
| Absent | 57 (47.5%) | |
| Present | 63 (52.5%) | |
| Venous invasion | ||
| Absent | 81 (67.5%) | |
| Present | 39 (32.5%) | |
| Pathology | ||
| SCC | 108 (90.0%) | |
| Others | 12 (10.0%) | |
| Pathological stage | ||
| 0 | 14 (11.7%) | |
| I | 31 (25.8%) | |
| II | 40 (33.3%) | |
| III | 24 (20.0%) | |
| IV | 11 (9.2%) | |
| Preoperative treatment | ||
| Absent | 64 (53.3%) | |
| Present | 56 (46.7%) | |
| Estimated blood loss (g) | 495.0 (305.5, 719.8) | |
| Duration of operation (min) | 551.0 (420.5, 632.0) | |
| Approach of operation | ||
| Open | 33 (27.5%) | |
| Thoracoscopic | 87 (72.5%) | |
| Lymphadenectomy | ||
| Two-field | 53 (44.2%) | |
| Three-field | 67 (55.8%) | |
| Location of anastomosis | ||
| Cervical | 73 (60.8%) | |
| Intrathoracic | 47 (39.2%) | |
| Route of reconstruction | ||
| Subcutaneous | 4 (3.3%) | |
| Retrosternal | 61 (50.8%) | |
| Posterior mediastinal | 55 (45.8%) | |
| Method of anastomosis | ||
| End-to-side | 112 (93.3%) | |
| End-to-end | 8 (6.7%) | |
| ICG fluorescein imaging | ||
| ICG (−) group | 61 (50.8%) | |
| ICG (+) group | 59 (49.2%) | |
| Complications | ||
| Anastomotic leakage | 8 (6.7%) | |
| Necrosis of gastric conduit | 1 (0.83%) | |
| Anastomotic-bronchial fistula | 1 (0.83%) | |
| Surgical site infection | 24 (20.0%) | |
| Respiratory complication | 23 (19.2%) | |
| Recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis | 14 (11.7%) | |
ASA American society of anesthesiologists, SCC squamous cell carcinoma, ICG indocyanine green
Various factors and postoperative AL in patients undergoing esophagectomy: univariate logistic regression analysis
| Variables | AL (−) | AL (+) | HR | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 93 (92.1%) | 8 (7.9%) | 0.7312 | 0.1650–5.1191 | 0.7143 |
| Female | 17 (89.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | |||
| Age (years) | |||||
| >68 | 51 (91.1%) | 5 (8.9%) | 1.8000 | 0.4873–7.3726 | 0.3773 |
| ≤68 | 60 (93.8%) | 4 (6.2%) | |||
| BMI (kg/m2) | |||||
| ≥19.4 | 83 (90.2%) | 9 (9.8%) | 3.0731 | 0.5412–57.9333 | 0.2340 |
| <19.4 | 28 (96.6%) | 1 (3.4%) | |||
| ASA classification | |||||
| ≥2 | 58 (89.2%) | 7 (10.8%) | 2.0920 | 0.5505–10.0919 | 0.5788 |
| 1 | 52 (94.5%) | 3 (5.5%) | |||
| Preoperative therapy | |||||
| Present | 50 (89.3%) | 6 (10.7%) | 1.8000 | 0.4873–7.3726 | 0.3773 |
| Absent | 60 (93.8%) | 4 (6.2%) | |||
| T classification | |||||
| T3, T4 | 36 (90%) | 4 (10%) | 1.3704 | 0.3329–5.1011 | 0.6448 |
| T0, T1a, T1b, T2 | 72 (92.3%) | 6 (7.7%) | |||
| Lymphatic node metastasis | |||||
| Present | 49 (87.5%) | 7 (12.5%) | 2.9048 | 0.7643–14.0202 | 0.1195 |
| Absent | 61 (95.3%) | 3 (4.7%) | |||
| Pathology | |||||
| Others | 12 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0.00013 | 0.0000–1.8782 | 0.1375 |
| SCC | 98 (90.7%) | 10 (9.3%) | |||
| Lymphatic invasion | |||||
| Present | 56 (88.9%) | 7 (11.1%) | 3.3124 | 0.7602–22.9017 | 0.1152 |
| Absent | 53 (96.4%) | 2 (3.6%) | |||
| Venous invasion | |||||
| Present | 37 (92.5%) | 2 (7.5%) | 0.5560 | 0.0802–2.4384 | 0.4582 |
| Absent | 72 (91.1%) | 7 (8.9%) | |||
| CEA (ng/µl) | |||||
| >5 | 27 (90%) | 3 (10%) | 1.3148 | 0.2631–5.3642 | 0.7160 |
| ≤5 | 71 (92.2%) | 6 (7.8%) | |||
| SCC (ng/dl) | |||||
| >1.5 | 20 (83.3%) | 4 (16.7%) | 2.8333 | 0.6722–10.8862 | 0.1473 |
| ≤1.5 | 85 (93.4%) | 6 (6.6%) | |||
| Alb (g/dl) | |||||
| <3.5 | 11 (91.7%) | 1 (8.3%) | 1.0000 | 0.0518–6.1171 | 1.0000 |
| ≥3.5 | 99 (91.7%) | 9 (8.3%) | |||
| CRP ( mg/dl) | |||||
| >0.5 | 26 (86.7%) | 4 (13.3%) | 2.1538 | 0.5178–8.1310 | 0.2748 |
| ≤0.5 | 84 (93.3%) | 6 (6.7%) | |||
| mGPS | |||||
| 1–2 | 31 (88.6%) | 4 (11.4%) | 1.6989 | 0.4110–6.3597 | 0.4436 |
| 0 | 79 (92.9%) | 6 (7.1%) | |||
| NLR | |||||
| >2.5 | 41 (85.4%) | 7 (14.6%) | 3.8130 | 0.9999–18.4563 | 0.0500 |
| ≤2.5 | 67 (95.7%) | 3 (4.3%) | |||
| Estimated blood loss (ml) | |||||
| >495 | 56 (93.3%) | 4 (6.7%) | 0.6429 | 0.1570–2.3740 | 0.5076 |
| ≤495 | 54 (90%) | 6 (10%) | |||
| Duration of operation (min) | |||||
| >551 | 52 (88.1%) | 7 (11.9%) | 2.6026 | 0.6851–12.5565 | 0.1637 |
| ≤551 | 58 (95.1%) | 3 (4.9%) | |||
| Approach of operation | |||||
| Thoracoscopic | 80 (92.0%) | 7 (8.0%) | 0.8750 | 0.2269–4.2605 | 0.8545 |
| Open | 30 (90.9%) | 3 (9.4%) | |||
| Lymphadenectomy | |||||
| Three-field | 60 (89.6%) | 7 (10.4%) | 1.9444 | 0.5115–9.3818 | 0.3378 |
| Two-field | 50 (94.3%) | 3 (5.7%) | |||
| Location of anastomosis | |||||
| Cervical | 65 (89.0%) | 8 (11.0%) | 2.7692 | 0.6565–18.9160 | 0.1757 |
| Intrathoracic | 45 (95.7%) | 2 (4.3%) | |||
| Route | |||||
| Retrosternal | 55 (91.7%) | 5 (8.3%) | 1.1919 | 0.2972–5.0011 | 0.8105 |
| Posterior mediastinal | 52 (92.9%) | 4 (7.1%) | |||
| Method of anastomosis | |||||
| End-to-side | 103 (92.0%) | 9 (8.0%) | 0.6117 | 0.0928–12.0783 | 0.6777 |
| End-to-end | 8 (88.9%) | 1 (11.1%) | |||
| ICG fluorescein imaging | |||||
| ICG (−) group | 52 (85.2%) | 9 (14.7%) | 10.0384 | 1.7969–188.2576 | 0.0057 |
| ICG (+) group | 58 (98.3%) | 1 (1.7%) | |||
AL anastomotic leak, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, BMI body mass index, ASA American society of anesthesiologists, SCC squamous cell carcinoma, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, SCC squamous cell carcinoma antigen, Alb albumin, CRP C-reactive protein, mGPS modified Glasgow prognosis score, NLR neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, ICG indocyanine green
Multivariate logistic regression analysis for postoperative AL in EC patients
| Variables | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI |
| |
| NLR (>2.5 vs ≤2.5) | 3.2911 | 0.8306–16.3605 | 0.0909 |
| ICG fluorescein imaging [ICG (−) group vs ICG (+) group] | 9.0740 | 1.5923–171.2574 | 0.0098 |
AL anastomotic leak, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, NLR neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, ICG indocyanine green
Fig. 2Clinical courses of the 59 patients who underwent ICG fluorescein imaging and the 61 patients who did not undergo ICG fluorescein imaging during EC surgery