Felix Berlth1, Marc Bludau1, Patrick Sven Plum1, Till Herbold2, Hildegard Christ3, Hakan Alakus1, Robert Kleinert1, Christiane Josephine Bruns1, Arnulf Heinrich Hölscher4, Seung-Hun Chon5. 1. Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. 2. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany. 3. Institute of Medical Statistics and Bioinformatics, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 4. Center for Esophageal and Gastric Surgery, AGAPLESION Markus Krankenhaus, Frankfurt, Germany. 5. Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. seung-hun.chon@uk-koeln.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak after gastroesophageal surgery is a life-threatening complication. Self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) implantation or endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) have been established as alternatives to reoperation. This study compares the outcome of both interventions for anastomotic leak clinical management. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we identified all patients who received SEMS or EVT for anastomotic leaks after oncological gastroesophageal surgery between January 2007 and December 2016. Only patients with type II leaks according to the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group were included. Sealing rates, intervention-related complications, demographic characteristics, clinical history, leak characteristics, therapy duration, and in-hospital mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred eleven patients who received SEMS (n = 76) or EVT (n = 35) were identified and categorized by primary and final treatment. The overall closure rate in the final treatment analysis was 85.7% for EVT and 72.4% for SEMS (p = 0.152). ICU stay ranged from 0 to 60 days (median 6 days) for EVT and from 0 to 295 days (median 9 days) for SEMS (p = 0.704). EVT patients were hospitalized for 19-119 days (median 39 days) and SEMS patients for 13-296 days (median 37 days; p = 0.812). Demographic factors, comorbidities, and surgical parameters did not correlate with treatment or treatment success. CONCLUSIONS: SEMS and EVT show comparable results for anastomotic leak management after oncologic gastroesophageal surgery. No superior outcome could be found for either one of the two treatments options.
BACKGROUND:Anastomotic leak after gastroesophageal surgery is a life-threatening complication. Self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) implantation or endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) have been established as alternatives to reoperation. This study compares the outcome of both interventions for anastomotic leak clinical management. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we identified all patients who received SEMS or EVT for anastomotic leaks after oncological gastroesophageal surgery between January 2007 and December 2016. Only patients with type II leaks according to the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group were included. Sealing rates, intervention-related complications, demographic characteristics, clinical history, leak characteristics, therapy duration, and in-hospital mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred eleven patients who received SEMS (n = 76) or EVT (n = 35) were identified and categorized by primary and final treatment. The overall closure rate in the final treatment analysis was 85.7% for EVT and 72.4% for SEMS (p = 0.152). ICU stay ranged from 0 to 60 days (median 6 days) for EVT and from 0 to 295 days (median 9 days) for SEMS (p = 0.704). EVTpatients were hospitalized for 19-119 days (median 39 days) and SEMS patients for 13-296 days (median 37 days; p = 0.812). Demographic factors, comorbidities, and surgical parameters did not correlate with treatment or treatment success. CONCLUSIONS: SEMS and EVT show comparable results for anastomotic leak management after oncologic gastroesophageal surgery. No superior outcome could be found for either one of the two treatments options.
Authors: A Koen Talsma; Hester F Lingsma; Ewout W Steyerberg; Bas P L Wijnhoven; J Jan B Van Lanschot Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Maarten F J Seesing; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Lucas Goense; Richard van Hillegersberg; Hidde M Kroon; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Jelle P Ruurda; Annelijn E Slaman; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Bas P L Wijnhoven Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Marc Bludau; Hans F Fuchs; Till Herbold; Martin K H Maus; Hakan Alakus; Felix Popp; Jessica M Leers; Christiane J Bruns; Arnulf H Hölscher; Wolfgang Schröder; Seung-Hun Chon Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: M Brangewitz; T Voigtländer; F A Helfritz; T O Lankisch; M Winkler; J Klempnauer; M P Manns; A S Schneider; J Wedemeyer Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Jonathan Loeck; Hans-Jürgen von Lücken; Adrian Münscher; Christian Theodor Müller; Gunnar Loske Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-03-14 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Marcus Kantowski; Karl Karstens; Pasquale Scognamiglio; Nathaniel Melling; Matthias Reeh; Jakob Izbicki; Thomas Rösch; Michael Tachezy Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Chengcheng Christine Zhang; Lukas Liesenfeld; Rosa Klotz; Ronald Koschny; Christian Rupp; Thomas Schmidt; Markus K Diener; Beat P Müller-Stich; Thilo Hackert; Peter Sauer; Markus W Büchler; Anja Schaible Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Florian Scheufele; Thomas Vogel; Melanie Gasiorek; Alexander Novotny; Helmut Friess; Ihsan Ekin Demir; Stephan Schorn Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Jonas Lange; Arno Dormann; Dirk Rolf Bulian; Ulrich Hügle; Claus Ferdinand Eisenberger; Markus Maria Heiss Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2021-05-27
Authors: Amber Famiglietti; John F Lazar; Hayley Henderson; Margaret Hamm; Stefanie Malouf; Marc Margolis; Thomas J Watson; Puja Gaur Khaitan Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.005