Endoscopic esophagogastric anastomosis with luminal apposition Axios stent (LAS) approach: a new concept for hybrid “Lewis Santy”

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Esophagogastric anastomosis (EGA) has a high risk of leakage. Based upon our experience in endoscopic gastrojejunal anastomosis using LAS, the aim of this study was to verify the technical feasibility and the safety of performing an EGA using a hybrid approach (endoscopic and surgical).

Materials and methods A pilot prospective study was performed on 8 survival pigs. The procedure was carried out in 2 stages: (i) surgical step consisting of an esogastrectomy by laparotomy with separated suture of the esophagus and stomach; (ii) endoscopic esophagogastric anastomosis using the LAS. The first 2 pigs allowed for the setting of the 2 steps procedure, and 6 were included in the study for assessing the efficacy and safety of the procedure with a 3-week survival course. The primary endpoint was morbidity and mortality.

Results All procedures were successfull. The mean operative time was 98 minutes, with a mean endoscopic time of 46 minutes. Three early deaths occurred within the first weeks, unrelated to the LAS anastomosis. At 3 weeks, endoscopic assessment followed by necropsy demonstrated the right position and the endoscopic removability of the stent with good patency of the esophagogastric anastomosis, without leakage of the endoscopic suture. Pathological examination confirmed the patency of the anastomosis with fusion of mucosal and muscle layers.

Conclusion Endoscopic esophagogastric anastomosis with LAS is feasible and reproducible, without anastomotic leakage. It could be a new alternative to perform safe anastomoses, as part of a hybrid approach (surgical and endoscopic).

• References

• 1 Mariette C, Triboulet JP. [Complications following oesophagectomy: mechanism, detection, treatment and prevention]. J Chir (Paris) 2005; 142: 348-354
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Watson DI, Davies N, Jamieson GG. Totally endoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 1999; 13: 293-297
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Bailey SH, Bull DA, Harpole DH. et al. Outcomes after esophagectomy: a ten-year prospective cohort. Ann Thorac Surg 2003; 75: 217-222 ; discussion 222
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Luketich JD, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura PO. et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg 2003; 238: 486-94 ; discussion 494–495
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Vanbiervliet G, Bonin EA, Garcès R. et al. Gastrojejunal anastomosis using a tissue-apposing stent: a safety and feasibility study in live pigs. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 871-877
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Binmoeller KF, Shah J. A novel lumen-apposing stent for transluminal drainage of nonadherent extraintestinal fluid collections. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 337-342
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Sarela AI, Tolan DJ, Harris K. et al. Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for cancer: a mortality-free experience. J Am Coll Surg 2008; 206: 516-523
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Alanezi K, Urschel JD. Mortality secondary to esophageal anastomotic leak. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Off J Assoc Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Asia 2004; 10: 71-75
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Thrumurthy S. et al. Volume-outcome relationship in surgery for esophageal malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis 2000-2011. J Gastrointest Surg Off J Soc Surg Aliment Tract 2012; 16: 1055-1063
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Biere SSAY, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW. et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Lond Engl 2012; 379: 1887-1892
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Biere SSAY, Cuesta MA, van der Peet DL. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Chir 2009; 64: 121-133
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Sihag S, Kosinski AS, Gaissert HA. et al. Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Comparison of Early Surgical Outcomes From The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.09.095.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Kassis ES, Kosinski AS, Ross P. et al. Predictors of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: an analysis of the society of thoracic surgeons general thoracic database. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96: 1919-1926
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Wright CD, Kucharczuk JC, O’Brien SM. et al. Predictors of major morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database risk adjustment model. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137: 587-595 ; discussion 596
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Maas KW, Cuesta MA, van Berge Henegouwen MI. et al. Quality of Life and Late Complications After Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Esophagectomy: Results of a Randomized Trial. World J Surg 2015; 39: 1986-1993
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Traverso LW, Shinchi H, Low DE. Useful benchmarks to evaluate outcomes after esophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 2004; 187: 604-608
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Price TN, Nichols FC, Harmsen WS. et al. A comprehensive review of anastomotic technique in 432 esophagectomies. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 95: 1154-1160 ; discussion 1160–1161
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Low DE. Evolution in surgical management of esophageal cancer. Dig Dis Basel Switz 2013; 31: 21-29
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Low DE, Bodnar A. Update on clinical impact, documentation, and management of complications associated with esophagectomy. Thorac Surg Clin 2013; 23: 535-550
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Kim RH, Takabe K. Methods of esophagogastric anastomoses following esophagectomy for cancer: A systematic review. J Surg Oncol 2010; 101: 527-533
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Glatz T, Marjanovic G, Zirlik K. et al. [Surgical treatment of esophageal cancer: Evolution of management and prognosis over the last 3 decades]. Chir Z Für Alle Geb Oper Medizen 2015; 86: 662-669
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 von Renteln D, Vassiliou MC, McKenna D. et al. Endoscopic vs. laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy for duodenal obstruction: a randomized study in a porcine model. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 161-168
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Vanbiervliet G, Gonzalez J-M, Bonin EA. et al. Gastrojejunal Anastomosis Exclusively Using the “NOTES” Technique in Live Pigs: A Feasibility and Reliability Study. Surg Innov 2014; 21: 409-418
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Gonzalez J-M, Bonin EA, Vanbiervliet G. et al. Evaluation of feasibility, efficiency and safety of a pure NOTES gastrojejunal bypass with gastric outlet obstruction, in an in vivo porcine model. Endosc Int Open 2013; 1: 31-38
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Barthet M, Binmoeller KF, Vanbiervliet G. et al. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery gastroenterostomy with a biflanged lumen-apposing stent: first clinical experience (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 215-218
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar