Literature DB >> 31410823

Perianastomotic drainage in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy, does habit affect utility? An 11-year single-center experience.

C A De Pasqual1, J Weindelmayer2, S Laiti2, R La Mendola2, M Bencivenga2, L Alberti2, S Giacopuzzi2, G de Manzoni2.   

Abstract

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a deadly complication after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. The use of an anastomotic drainage (AD), to diagnose and to potentially treat the leakage, is still a widespread practice. At present, scientific literature is lacking in this topic and its use is based on each center experience. We performed a retrospective analysis of 239 consecutive patients who underwent an Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in our Department from 01/01/2006 to 31/12/2017. Until 28/02/2014, a transthoracic anastomotic drainage was routinely placed in 119 patients (anastomotic-drain group). Drainage removal was planned on POD 5 after the resume of oral intake. In the remaining 120 cases, no drainage was placed (no anastomotic-drain group). We compared the two groups to assess whether the anastomotic drainage had an impact on the timing of the anastomotic leakage diagnosis and treatment. In our series, we observed 9 anastomotic leaks in the first group (7.6%) and 3 in the second one (2.5%). In the anastomotic-drain group, median time for leak diagnosis was 10 days, and notably, in seven cases, the anastomotic drainage was already removed. Considering all the patients who experienced an AL, a re-operation was mandatory in one case, while endoscopic treatment was chosen for five cases and conservative treatment was adopted in three cases. The median hospital length of stay in these patients was 31 days. In the no anastomotic-drain group, one patient with anastomotic leakage was treated conservatively and discharged after 34 days. The other two cases were re-operated and an esophageal prosthesis was placed in both cases, and these patients were discharged, respectively, on POD 28 and POD 38. Concluding, the role of the anastomotic drain in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy is still unclear. There is a shortage of the literature on this topic and our experience shows that the anastomotic drain has a limited sensibility in AL diagnosis and cannot replace the clinical signs and symptoms. Moreover, the drain it is often removed before the leakage becomes visible. In selected patients with a less severe leak, the anastomotic drain can be an effective treatment, but often a percutaneous drainage, it is an effective alternative choice. In severe dehiscence with sepsis, a reoperation remains the mainstay to control the mediastinal contamination and to eventually treat the leakage.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anastomotic leakage; Esophagectomy; Esophago-gastric anastomosis

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31410823     DOI: 10.1007/s13304-019-00674-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Updates Surg        ISSN: 2038-131X


  21 in total

Review 1.  Leaks, strictures, and necrosis: a review of anastomotic complications following esophagectomy.

Authors:  Stephen D Cassivi
Journal:  Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2004

2.  Chest drain penetration into the transposed stomach after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: diagnosis by early postoperative endoscopy.

Authors:  W T Siu; S C Chung; A K Li
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1992 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Recent improvements in the management of esophageal anastomotic leak after surgery for cancer.

Authors:  M Messager; M Warlaumont; F Renaud; H Marin; J Branche; G Piessen; C Mariette
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 4.424

4.  Serial Drain Amylase Can Accurately Detect Anastomotic Leak After Esophagectomy and May Facilitate Early Discharge.

Authors:  Yaron Perry; Christopher W Towe; Jonathan Kwong; Vanessa P Ho; Philip A Linden
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 5.  Risk and Complication Management in Esophageal Cancer Surgery: A Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Ines Gockel; Stefan Niebisch; Constantin Johannes Ahlbrand; Christian Hoffmann; Markus Möhler; Christoph Düber; Hauke Lang; Florian Heid
Journal:  Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2015-01-28       Impact factor: 1.827

6.  Oesophageal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

Authors:  F Lordick; C Mariette; K Haustermans; R Obermannová; D Arnold
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 32.976

7.  A method for early diagnosis and treatment of intrathoracic esophageal anastomotic leakage: prophylactic placement of a drainage tube adjacent to the anastomosis.

Authors:  Hua Tang; Lei Xue; Jiang Hong; Xiandong Tao; Zhifei Xu; Bin Wu
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 8.  Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Zhen Wang; Junqiang Chen; Ka Su; Zhiyong Dong
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-05-11

9.  Anastomotic leakage post-esophagogastrectomy for esophageal carcinoma: retrospective analysis of predictive factors, management and influence on longterm survival in a high volume centre.

Authors:  M Junemann-Ramirez; M Y Awan; Z M Khan; J S Rahamim
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.191

10.  Intraluminal migration of surgical drains after transhiatal esophagogastrectomy: radiographic findings and clinical relevance.

Authors:  Andrew S H Wilmot; Marc S Levine; Stephen E Rubesin; John C Kucharczuk; Igor Laufer
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.