Steve R Siegal1, Abhishek D Parmar1, Kelly R Haisley1, Brandon H Tieu1, Paul H Schipper1, John G Hunter1, James P Dolan2. 1. Department of Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park RD, Mail Code: L223A, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park RD, Mail Code: L223A, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. dolanj@ohsu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastric ischemic conditioning prior to esophagectomy can increase neovascularization of the new conduit. Prior studies of ischemic conditioning have only investigated reductions in anastomotic leaks. Our aim was to analyze the association between gastric conditioning and all anastomotic outcomes as well as overall morbidity in our cohort of esophagectomy patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing esophagectomy from 2010 to 2015 in a National Cancer Institute designated center. Ischemic conditioning (IC) was performed on morbidly obese patients, those with cardiovascular disease or uncontrolled diabetes, and those requiring feeding jejunostomy and active tobacco users. IC consisted of transection of the short gastric vessels and ligation of the left gastric vessels. Primary outcomes consisted of all postoperative anastomotic complications. Secondary outcomes were overall morbidity. RESULTS: Two-hundred and seven esophagectomies were performed with an average follow-up of 19 months. Thirty-eight patients (18.4%) underwent conditioning (IC). This group was similar to patients not conditioned (NIC) in age, preoperative pathology, and surgical approach. Five patients in the ischemic conditioning group (13.2%) and 57 patients (33.7%) in the NIC experienced anastomotic complications (p = 0.011). Ischemic conditioning significantly reduced the postoperative stricture rate fourfold (5.3 vs. 20.7% p = 0.02). IC patients experienced significantly fewer complications overall (36.8 vs. 56.2% p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Gastric ischemic conditioning is associated with fewer overall anastomotic complications, fewer strictures, and less morbidity. Randomized studies may determine optimal selection criteria to determine whom best benefits from ischemic conditioning.
BACKGROUND: Gastric ischemic conditioning prior to esophagectomy can increase neovascularization of the new conduit. Prior studies of ischemic conditioning have only investigated reductions in anastomotic leaks. Our aim was to analyze the association between gastric conditioning and all anastomotic outcomes as well as overall morbidity in our cohort of esophagectomy patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing esophagectomy from 2010 to 2015 in a National Cancer Institute designated center. Ischemic conditioning (IC) was performed on morbidly obesepatients, those with cardiovascular disease or uncontrolled diabetes, and those requiring feeding jejunostomy and active tobacco users. IC consisted of transection of the short gastric vessels and ligation of the left gastric vessels. Primary outcomes consisted of all postoperative anastomotic complications. Secondary outcomes were overall morbidity. RESULTS: Two-hundred and seven esophagectomies were performed with an average follow-up of 19 months. Thirty-eight patients (18.4%) underwent conditioning (IC). This group was similar to patients not conditioned (NIC) in age, preoperative pathology, and surgical approach. Five patients in the ischemic conditioning group (13.2%) and 57 patients (33.7%) in the NIC experienced anastomotic complications (p = 0.011). Ischemic conditioning significantly reduced the postoperative stricture rate fourfold (5.3 vs. 20.7% p = 0.02). IC patients experienced significantly fewer complications overall (36.8 vs. 56.2% p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Gastric ischemic conditioning is associated with fewer overall anastomotic complications, fewer strictures, and less morbidity. Randomized studies may determine optimal selection criteria to determine whom best benefits from ischemic conditioning.
Authors: Stephen H Bailey; David A Bull; David H Harpole; Jeffrey J Rentz; Leigh A Neumayer; Theodore N Pappas; Jennifer Daley; William G Henderson; Barbara Krasnicka; Shukri F Khuri Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Aristotelis Kechagias; Peter S N van Rossum; Jelle P Ruurda; Richard van Hillegersberg Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Andrew J E Seely; Jelena Ivanovic; Jennifer Threader; Ahmed Al-Hussaini; Derar Al-Shehab; Tim Ramsay; Sebastian Gilbert; Donna E Maziak; Farid M Shamji; R Sudhir Sundaresan Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Thai H Pham; Shelby D Melton; Patrick J McLaren; Ali A Mokdad; Sergio Huerta; David H Wang; Kyle A Perry; Hope L Hardaker; James P Dolan Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-05-29 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: K Robert Shen; Karen M Harrison-Phipps; Stephen D Cassivi; Dennis Wigle; Francis C Nichols; Mark S Allen; Christina M Wood; Claude Deschamps Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Ninh T Nguyen; Xuan-Mai T Nguyen; Kevin M Reavis; Christian Elliott; Hossein Masoomi; Michael J Stamos Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-12-17 Impact factor: 4.584