Literature DB >> 29909668

Comparison of cervical anastomotic leak and stenosis after oesophagectomy for carcinoma according to the interval of the stomach ischaemic conditioning.

V Prochazka1, F Marek1, L Kunovsky1,2, R Svaton1, T Grolich1, P Moravcik1, M Farkasova1, Z Kala1.   

Abstract

Background Stomach preparation by ischaemic conditioning prior to oesophageal resection represents a potential method of reducing the risk of anastomotic complications. This study compares the results of the anastomotic complications of cervical anastomosis after oesophagectomy with a short interval after ischaemic conditioning (group S) and a long interval (group L). Methods Subjects undergoing oesophagectomy for carcinoma after ischaemic conditioning were divided into two groups. Group S had a median interval between ischaemic conditioning and resection of 20 days, while for group L the median interval was 49 days. Anastomotic leak and anastomotic stenosis in relation to the interval between ischaemic conditioning and actual resection were followed. Results After ischaemic conditioning, 33 subjects in total underwent surgery for carcinoma; 19 subjects in group S and 14 subjects in group L. Anastomotic leak incidence was comparable in both groups. Anastomotic stenosis occurred in 21% of cases in group S and 7% of cases in group L (not statistically significant). Conclusions A long interval between ischaemic conditioning and oesophagectomy does not adversely affect the postoperative complications. A lower incidence of anastomosis stenoses was found in subjects with a longer interval, however, given the size of our sample, the statistical significance was not demonstrated. Both groups seem comparable in surgical procedure course and postoperative complications.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anastomotic leak; Anastomotic stenosis; Minimally invasive oesophagectomy; Oesophageal carcinoma; Stomach ischaemic conditioning

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29909668      PMCID: PMC6214061          DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2018.0066

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  18 in total

1.  Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients.

Authors:  James D Luketich; Arjun Pennathur; Omar Awais; Ryan M Levy; Samuel Keeley; Manisha Shende; Neil A Christie; Benny Weksler; Rodney J Landreneau; Ghulam Abbas; Matthew J Schuchert; Katie S Nason
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Preoperative laparoscopic ligation of the left gastric vessels in preparation for esophagectomy.

Authors:  Ninh T Nguyen; Mario Longoria; Allen Sabio; Sara Chalifoux; John Lee; Ken Chang; Samuel E Wilson
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Utilization of the delay phenomenon improves blood flow and reduces collagen deposition in esophagogastric anastomoses.

Authors:  Kevin M Reavis; Eugene Y Chang; John G Hunter; Blair A Jobe
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Beneficial effect of prostaglandin E1 on blood flow to the gastric tube after esophagectomy.

Authors:  Y Matsuzaki; M Edagawa; M Maeda; T Shimizu; R Sekiya; K Nakamura; T Onitsuka
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.330

5.  The effect of ischemic conditioning on gastric wound healing in the rat: implications for esophageal replacement with stomach.

Authors:  J D Urschel; H Takita; J G Antkowiak
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino)       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 1.888

6.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy with and without gastric ischemic conditioning.

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

7.  Recombinant vascular endothelial growth factor165 gene therapy improves anastomotic healing in an animal model of ischemic esophagogastrostomy.

Authors:  C K Enestvedt; L Hosack; T Hoppo; K A Perry; R W O'Rourke; S R Winn; J G Hunter; B A Jobe
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2011-09-07       Impact factor: 3.429

8.  Prevalence and risk factors for ischemia, leak, and stricture of esophageal anastomosis: gastric pull-up versus colon interposition.

Authors:  John W Briel; Anand P Tamhankar; Jeffrey A Hagen; Steven R DeMeester; Jan Johansson; Emmanouel Choustoulakis; Jeffrey H Peters; Cedric G Bremner; Tom R DeMeester
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  Preoperative embolization of gastric arteries for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  S Akiyama; S Ito; H Sekiguchi; M Fujiwara; J Sakamoto; K Kondo; Y Kasai; K Ito; H Takagi
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 3.982

10.  Delayed esophagogastrostomy: a safe strategy for management of patients with ischemic gastric conduit at time of esophagectomy.

Authors:  Arzu Oezcelik; Farzaneh Banki; Steven R DeMeester; Jessica M Leers; Shahin Ayazi; Emmanuele Abate; Jeffrey A Hagen; John C Lipham; Tom R DeMeester
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2009-04-24       Impact factor: 6.113

View more
  3 in total

1.  Feasibility of hybrid Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy after sleeve gastrectomy.

Authors:  Guy Pines; Harbi Khalayleh; Ibrahim Mashni; Ilan Bar
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2022-06-01

Review 2.  Risk factors and therapeutic measures for postoperative complications associated with esophagectomy.

Authors:  Mojtaba Ahmadinejad; Ali Soltanian; Leila Haji Maghsoudi
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2020-05-23

3.  A nomogram illustrating the probability of anastomotic leakage following cervical esophagogastrostomy.

Authors:  Joerg Lindenmann; Nicole Fink-Neuboeck; Christian Porubsky; Melanie Fediuk; Udo Anegg; Peter Kornprat; Maria Smolle; Alfred Maier; Josef Smolle; Freyja Maria Smolle-Juettner
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-10-26       Impact factor: 4.584

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.