Article Sidebar
Views PDF: 0
COMPLICATIONS OF ANASTOMOTIC LEAKAGE AFTER THORACOSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To study some characteristics of anastomotic leak after thoracoscopic radical esophagectomy, and some factors related to esophagogastric anastomotic leak.
Patients and research methods: retrospective descriptive study of 113 esophageal cancer patients undergoing thoracoscopic radical esophagectomy from January 2010 - August 2023 at Military Hospital 103.
Results: Mean age 54.8 ± 8.6 (32-75). Male: 97.3%, female: 2.7%. Complications of anastomotic leak: 13 patients (11.5%). The average time for anastomotic leak to appear is: 7.15 ± 1.5 (5-11) days. Common symptoms: 100% of patients have swelling in the neck area, 100% of patients have saliva flow through the surgical wound. Treatment of anastomotic leak: 100% of patients received medical treatment. Time to heal anastomotic leak: 18.8 ± 3.2 (15-24) days. Oral feeding time after anastomotic leak: 17.9 ± 3.8 (13-25) days. Factors such as age, gender, BMI, history of smoking, alcohol consumption and previous ASA index, surgery time, tumor invasion level (Tx), laparoscopic or open abdominal surgery are not important. prognostic significance of anastomotic leak. The anastomotic leak group had a longer hospital stay than the no anastomotic leak group, 22.46± 11.4 days compared to 13.5±4.6 days, this difference was statistically significant with p=0.01.
Conclusion: Complications of anastomotic leakage after thoracoscopic esophagectomy to treat esophageal cancer are common, diagnosis is based on clinical, medical treatment is mainly. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors related to anastomotic leak cannot be confirmed.
Article Details
Keywords
anastomotic leakage, esophageal cancer, esophagectomy, esophageal cancer, esophagectomy
References
2. Zhou, Can, Gang Ma, Xiao Li, et al. Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2015; 13:269-269.
3. Zheng, Xiao-Dong, Shi-Cong Li, Chao Lu, et al. Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy in 1023 consecutive esophageal cancer patients: A single-center experience. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2022; 17(1):36-36.
4. Takeuchi H, H Miyata, M Gotoh, et al. A risk model for esophagectomy using data of 5354 patients included in a Japanese nationwide web-based database. Ann Surg. 2014; 260(2): 259-266.
5. Deng J, Q Su, Z Ren et al. Comparison of short-term outcomes between minimally invasive McKeown and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal or junctional cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Onco Targets Ther. 2018; 11:6057-6069.
6. Tuo G, G Jin, Y Pang, et al. Omentoplasty decreases leak rate after esophagectomy: A meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2020; 24(6): 1237-1243.
7. Tavares, Guilherme, Francisco Tustumi, Luca Schiliró Tristão, and Wanderley Marques Bernardo. Endoscopic vacuum therapy for anastomotic leak in esophagectomy and total gastrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diseases of the Esophagus. 2021; 34(5).
8. You, Jinzhi, Hailing Zhang, Wei Li, et al. Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis in esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surgery. 2022; 172(2):575-583.
9. Grigor, EJM, S Kaaki, DA Fergusson, et al. Interventions to prevent anastomotic leak after esophageal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Surg. 2021; 21(1):42.
10. Aiolfi, Alberto, Davide Bona, Gianluca Bonitta, et al. Effect of gastric ischemic conditioning prior to esophagectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Updates in Surgery. 2023; 75(6):1633-1643.
11. Schlottmann F, CA Angeramo, C Bras Harriott, et al. Transthoracic esophagectomy: Hand-sewn versus side-to-side linear-stapled versus circular-stapled anastomosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2022; 32(3):380-392.