Hansol Kang1, Kfir Ben-David2, George A Sarosi3,4, Ryan M Thomas5,6. 1. University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL, USA. 3. Section of General Surgery, North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, Gainesville, FL, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, PO Box 100109, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA. 5. Section of General Surgery, North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, Gainesville, FL, USA. Ryan.Thomas@surgery.ufl.edu. 6. Department of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, PO Box 100109, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA. Ryan.Thomas@surgery.ufl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leaks (AL) are a major source of post-esophagectomy morbidity and patients are often initially asymptomatic. Debate exists on timing and utility of imaging to detect AL post-esophagectomy. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and timing of radiographic AL evaluation in esophageal cancer patients post-esophagectomy. METHODS: A retrospective database of esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy at a single institution from 2004 to 2020 was used to determine the utilization, timing, and sensitivity of radiologic testing for AL post-esophagectomy. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were identified of which 37 (49%) had a cervical anastomosis. Sixty-four (84%) underwent 71 "asymptomatic radiographic leak tests" (ARLT), 7 of which had 2 different tests, including: 41 fluoroscopic esophagrams (58%), 18 CT-esophagrams (25%), and 12 upper GI studies (17%). Seventeen patients (22%) developed clinical signs of AL (hemodynamic instability, leukocytosis) and underwent "symptomatic radiographic leak tests" (SRLT) with fluoroscopic esophagram (n = 9, 12%), CT-esophagram (n = 7, 9%), or upper GI study (n = 1, 1%). ARLT and SRLT were positive in 2/64 (3%) and 17/17 (100%) patients, respectively, for 19 total ALs (25%). Among the 17 SRLT( +) patients, 1 was also ARLT( +), 13 were initially ARLT( -), and 3 were not evaluated by ARLT. The median postoperative day for ARLT and SRLT was 4.0 (IQR 3.0-5.5) and 9.0 days (IQR 6.0-13.0), respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.005). The sensitivity and specificity of ARLT for detecting AL were 13.3% and 100.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low ARLT sensitivity, routine use of imaging to detect asymptomatic ALs post-esophagectomy may be limited. Symptomatic ALs were often present in a delayed fashion, even after initial negative imaging.
BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leaks (AL) are a major source of post-esophagectomy morbidity and patients are often initially asymptomatic. Debate exists on timing and utility of imaging to detect AL post-esophagectomy. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and timing of radiographic AL evaluation in esophageal cancer patients post-esophagectomy. METHODS: A retrospective database of esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy at a single institution from 2004 to 2020 was used to determine the utilization, timing, and sensitivity of radiologic testing for AL post-esophagectomy. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were identified of which 37 (49%) had a cervical anastomosis. Sixty-four (84%) underwent 71 "asymptomatic radiographic leak tests" (ARLT), 7 of which had 2 different tests, including: 41 fluoroscopic esophagrams (58%), 18 CT-esophagrams (25%), and 12 upper GI studies (17%). Seventeen patients (22%) developed clinical signs of AL (hemodynamic instability, leukocytosis) and underwent "symptomatic radiographic leak tests" (SRLT) with fluoroscopic esophagram (n = 9, 12%), CT-esophagram (n = 7, 9%), or upper GI study (n = 1, 1%). ARLT and SRLT were positive in 2/64 (3%) and 17/17 (100%) patients, respectively, for 19 total ALs (25%). Among the 17 SRLT( +) patients, 1 was also ARLT( +), 13 were initially ARLT( -), and 3 were not evaluated by ARLT. The median postoperative day for ARLT and SRLT was 4.0 (IQR 3.0-5.5) and 9.0 days (IQR 6.0-13.0), respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.005). The sensitivity and specificity of ARLT for detecting AL were 13.3% and 100.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low ARLT sensitivity, routine use of imaging to detect asymptomatic ALs post-esophagectomy may be limited. Symptomatic ALs were often present in a delayed fashion, even after initial negative imaging.
Authors: Jonathan Cools-Lartigue; Amin Andalib; Ali Abo-Alsaud; Stephen Gowing; Maxime Nguyen; David Mulder; Lorenzo Ferri Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Linda W Martin; Stephen G Swisher; Wayne Hofstetter; Arlene M Correa; Reza J Mehran; David C Rice; Ara A Vaporciyan; Garrett L Walsh; Jack A Roth Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: John Agzarian; Sue L Visscher; Ariel W Knight; Mark S Allen; Stephen D Cassivi; Francis C Nichols; K Robert Shen; Dennis Wigle; Shanda H Blackmon Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Joel Shapiro; J Jan B van Lanschot; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Pieter van Hagen; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Geke A P Hospers; Johannes J Bonenkamp; Miguel A Cuesta; Reinoud J B Blaisse; Olivier R C Busch; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Geert-Jan M Creemers; Cornelis J A Punt; John Th M Plukker; Henk M W Verheul; Ernst J Spillenaar Bilgen; Herman van Dekken; Maurice J C van der Sangen; Tom Rozema; Katharina Biermann; Jannet C Beukema; Anna H M Piet; Caroline M van Rij; Janny G Reinders; Hugo W Tilanus; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ate van der Gaast Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Joel Tepper; Mark J Krasna; Donna Niedzwiecki; Donna Hollis; Carolyn E Reed; Richard Goldberg; Krystyna Kiel; Christopher Willett; David Sugarbaker; Robert Mayer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544