Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radiologic versus endoscopic evaluation of the conduit after esophageal resection: a prospective, blinded, intraindividually controlled diagnostic study

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Anastomotic leakage is a major complication in esophageal surgery. Although contrast swallow is performed by many surgical centers before reintroduction of oral intake to exclude anastomotic leakage postoperatively, endoscopy is increasingly used in this situation and may be superior. This study compares radiographic contrast study and endoscopy for the identification of local complications after subtotal esophagectomy.

Methods

Between January 2006 and September 2007, a prospective, blinded, intraindividually controlled study was conducted in patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy due to esophageal cancer. A radiographic contrast study was performed prior to endoscopy on postoperative day 5–7. Technical feasibility, sensitivity, and specificity of the radiologic and endoscopic evaluations of the esophageal substitute were described.

Results

Radiographic contrast study was possible in only 64 % of the patients (35 of 55). The contrast study could not be performed in 20 patients due to contraindications or mechanical ventilation. Endoscopy could be performed in all patients (p < 0.001). Pathologic findings were detected in 13 patients by endoscopy but in only 1 patient by contrast swallow. Leakage of the anastomosis or the conduit was correctly detected in 7 patients by endoscopy but in only 1 patient by contrast swallow (p = 0.01). Endoscopy detected focal conduit necrosis or ischemia in six additional patients. Contrast studies showed false-positive results in two patients. Both sensitivity and specificity of endoscopy were 100 %, while sensitivity and specificity of the contrast study were only 20 and 94 %. No complications resulted from postoperative endoscopy or radiologic imaging.

Conclusions

Endoscopic evaluation of the esophageal substitute in the early postoperative course is possible in all patients without complications. Endoscopy is superior to the contrast study in detecting pathological findings after esophageal reconstruction. Radiologic contrast swallow in the early postoperative days is often not possible, has no further relevance, and should be replaced by endoscopic evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lerut T, Coosemans W, De Leyn P et al (2001) Optimizing treatment of carcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 10:863–884

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lam T, Fok M, Cheng S, Wong J (1992) Anastomotic complications after oesophagectomy for cancer - a comparison of neck and chest anastomoses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 104:395–400

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sauvanet A, Baltar J, Le Mee J, Belghiti J (1998) Diagnosis and conservative management of intrathoracic leakage after oesophagectomy. Br J Surg 85:1446–1449

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Karl R, Schreiber R, Boulvare D et al (2000) Factors affecting morbidity, mortality, and survival in patients undergoing Ivor lewis esophagogastrectomy. Ann Surg 231:635–643

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Alanezi K, Urschel J (2004) Mortality secondary to esophageal anastomotic leak. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 10:71–75

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Siewert J, Stein H, Bartels H (2004) Anastomotic insufficiencies in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Chirurg 75:1063–1070

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dewar L, Gelfand G, Finley R et al (1992) Factors affecting anastomotic leak and stricture formation following esophagectomy and gastric tube interposition. Am J Surg 163:484–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rizk N, Bach P, Schrag D et al (2004) The impact of complications on outcomes after resection for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 198:42–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lagarde S, De Boer J, Kate F et al (2008) Postoperative complications after esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus are related to timing of death due to recurrence. Ann Surg 247:71–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bardini R, Bonavina L, Asolati M et al (1994) Single-layered cervical esophageal anastomoses: a prospective study of two suturing techniques. Ann Thorac Surg 58:1087–1090

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lerut T (2000) The surgeon as a prognostic factor. Ann Surg 232:729–732

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Whooley B, Law S, Murthy S et al (2001) Analysis of reduced death and complication rates after esophageal resection. Ann Surg 3:338–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Birkmeyer J, Stukel T, Siewers A et al (2003) Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 349:2117–2127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Briel J, Tamhankar A, Hagen J et al (2004) Prevalence and risk factors for ischemia, leak, and stricture of esophageal anastomosis. J Am Coll Surg 198:536–541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bruce J, Krukowski Z, Al-Kjairy G et al (2001) Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery. Br J Surg 88:1157–1168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nambirajan L, Rintala R, Losty P et al (1998) The value of early postoperative oesophagography following repair of oesophageal atresia. Pediatr Surg Int 13:76–78

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fernandez-Fernandez L, Tejero E, Tieso A (1996) Randomized trial of fibrin glue to seal mechanical oesophagojejunal anastomosis. Br J Surg 83:42–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Craig S, Walker W, Cameron E, Wightman A (1996) A prospective randomized study comparing stapled with handsewn oesophagogastric anastomoses. J R Coll Surg Edingb 175:367–370

    Google Scholar 

  19. Deshmane V, Shinde S (1994) The cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leak. Dis Esophagus 7:42–46

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tanomkiat W, Galassi W (2000) Barium sulfate as contrast medium for evaluation of postoperative anastomotic leaks. Acta Radiol 41:482–485

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fan S, Lau W, Yip W et al (1988) Limitations and dangers of gastrografin swallow after esophageal and upper gastric operations. Am J Surg 160:322–323

    Google Scholar 

  22. Obertop H, Bosscha K, De Graaf P (1994) Mediastinitis from anastomotic disruption after esophageal resection and reconstruction for cancer: results of salvage surgery. Dis Esophagus 7:184–187

    Google Scholar 

  23. Griffin S, Lamb P, Dresner S et al (2001) Diagnosis and management of a mediastinal leak following radical oesophagectomy. Br J Surg 88:1346–1351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Page R, Shackcloth M, Russell G, Pennefather S (2005) Surgical treatment of anastomotic leaks after oesophagectomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 27:337–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Manegold B (1981) Early postoperative endoscopy in the operated stomach. Endoscopy 13:104–107

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hölscher A, Vallböhmer D, Brabender J (2006) The prevention and management of perioperative complications. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 20:907–923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Maish M, DeMeesters S, Choustoulakis E et al (2005) The safety and usefulness of endoscopy for evaluation of the graft and anastomosis early after esophagectomy and reconstruction. Surg Endosc 19:1093–1102

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Liebermann-Meffert D, Meier R, Siewert J (1992) Vascular anatomy of the gastric tube used for esophageal reconstruction. Ann Thorac Surg 54:1110–1115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schilling M, Mettler D, Redaelli C, Büchler M (1997) Circulatory and anatomic differences among experimental gastric tubes as esophageal replacement. World J Surg 21:992–997

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Akiyama H, Miyazono H, Tsurumaru M et al (1978) Use of the stomach as an esophageal substitute. Ann Surg 188:606–610

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Buchler M, Baer H, Seiler C, Schilling M (1996) A technique for gastroplasty as a substitute for the esophagus: fundus rotation gastroplasty. J Am Coll Surg 182:241–245

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Valverde A, Hay J, Fingerhut A et al (1996) Manual versus mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis after resection for carcinoma: a controlled trial. Surgery 120:476–483

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lamb P, Griffin S, Chandrashekar M et al (2004) Prospective study of routine contrast radiology after total gastrectomy. Br J Surg 91:1015–1019

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hogan BA, Winter D, Broe P et al (2008) Prospective trial comparing contrast swallow, computed tomography and endoscopy to identify anastomotic leak following oesophagogastric surgery. Surg Endosc 22:767–771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Urschel J (1995) Esophagogastrostomy anastomotic leaks complicating esophagectomy: a review. Am J Surg 169:634–640

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Crestanello J, Deschamps C, Cassivi S et al (2005) Selective management of intrathoracic anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129:254–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Van Bodegraven A, Kuipers E, Bonenkamp H, Meuwissen S (1999) Esophagopleural fistula treated endoscopically with argon beam electrocoagulation and clips. Gastrointest Endosc 50:407–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hühnerbein M, Stroszcynski C, Moestra K, Schlag P (2004) Treatment of thoracic anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy with self-expanding plastic stents. Ann Surg 240:801–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kauer K, Stein H, Dittler H, Siewert J (2008) Stent implantation as a treatment option in patients with thoracic anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 22:50–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Iannettoni M, Whyte R, Orringer M (1995) Catastrophic complications of the cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 110:1493–1501

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Dr. Anja Schaible, Dr. Peter Sauer, Prof. Werner Hartwig, Prof. Thilo Hackert, Prof. Boris Radeleff, Hr. Ulf Hinz, Prof. Markus Büchler and Prof. Jens Werner have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Anja Schaible, Werner Hartwig, Thilo Hackert, Ulf Hinz, Markus W. Büchler & Jens Werner

  2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Boris Radeleff

  3. Department of Gastroenterology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Peter Sauer

Authors
  1. Anja Schaible
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Sauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Werner Hartwig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thilo Hackert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ulf Hinz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Boris Radeleff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Markus W. Büchler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jens Werner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anja Schaible.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schaible, A., Sauer, P., Hartwig, W. et al. Radiologic versus endoscopic evaluation of the conduit after esophageal resection: a prospective, blinded, intraindividually controlled diagnostic study. Surg Endosc 28, 2078–2085 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3435-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3435-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation