Daisuke Fujiwara1, Masayuki Watanabe2, Yasukazu Kanie1, Suguru Maruyama1, Kei Sakamoto1, Akihiko Okamura1, Jun Kanamori1, Yu Imamura1, Shinji Mine1,3. 1. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31, Ariake, Koto, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan. 2. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31, Ariake, Koto, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan. masayuki.watanabe@jfcr.or.jp. 3. Department of Esophageal and Gastroenterological Surgery, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: McKeown esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy is the treatment of choice for oncologic esophagectomy. A cervical drain is placed in cases after modern two-field lymph node dissection (M2FD) to provide information on anastomotic leakage. However, the necessity of prophylactic cervical drainage during surgery remains unknown. This study aimed to clarify the clinical significance of cervical drainage in patients who underwent McKeown esophagectomy with M2FD. METHODS: A total of 293 patients underwent McKeown surgery with two-field lymphadenectomy at our institute between January 2013 and December 2019. We compared the day of drain removal, amount of drainage volume, and the appearance of drainage fluid between patients with and without anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: McKeown esophagectomy reconstructed through the retrosternal route is 203 patients (69.3%) of all. Nineteen patients (6.5%) experienced anastomotic leakage. The amount of cervical drain discharge was comparable between patients with and without anastomotic leakage. In addition, no purulent or salivary discharge was observed in patients with anastomotic leakage. There was no difference in the median day of drain removal between the groups. The initial clinical findings for the diagnosis of anastomotic leakage were surgical site infection in 10 (52.6%), fever in 5 (26.3%), prolonged inflammation in a blood test in 3 (15.8%), and bloody discharge from the chest tube in 1 (5.3%). There was no mortality due to any cause. CONCLUSION: A prophylactic cervical drain may not be mandatory in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing McKeown esophagectomy reconstructed through the retrosternal route with two-field lymphadenectomy.
BACKGROUND: McKeown esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy is the treatment of choice for oncologic esophagectomy. A cervical drain is placed in cases after modern two-field lymph node dissection (M2FD) to provide information on anastomotic leakage. However, the necessity of prophylactic cervical drainage during surgery remains unknown. This study aimed to clarify the clinical significance of cervical drainage in patients who underwent McKeown esophagectomy with M2FD. METHODS: A total of 293 patients underwent McKeown surgery with two-field lymphadenectomy at our institute between January 2013 and December 2019. We compared the day of drain removal, amount of drainage volume, and the appearance of drainage fluid between patients with and without anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: McKeown esophagectomy reconstructed through the retrosternal route is 203 patients (69.3%) of all. Nineteen patients (6.5%) experienced anastomotic leakage. The amount of cervical drain discharge was comparable between patients with and without anastomotic leakage. In addition, no purulent or salivary discharge was observed in patients with anastomotic leakage. There was no difference in the median day of drain removal between the groups. The initial clinical findings for the diagnosis of anastomotic leakage were surgical site infection in 10 (52.6%), fever in 5 (26.3%), prolonged inflammation in a blood test in 3 (15.8%), and bloody discharge from the chest tube in 1 (5.3%). There was no mortality due to any cause. CONCLUSION: A prophylactic cervical drain may not be mandatory in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing McKeown esophagectomy reconstructed through the retrosternal route with two-field lymphadenectomy.