Comparison of cervical anastomotic leak and stenosis after oesophagectomy for carcinoma according to the interval of the stomach ischaemic conditioning
Language English Country England, Great Britain Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article
Links
PubMed
29909668
PubMed Central
PMC6214061
DOI
10.1308/rcsann.2018.0066
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Anastomotic leak, Anastomotic stenosis, Minimally invasive oesophagectomy, Oesophageal carcinoma, Stomach ischaemic conditioning,
- MeSH
- Anastomosis, Surgical adverse effects methods MeSH
- Time Factors MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Esophagectomy adverse effects MeSH
- Incidence MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures adverse effects methods MeSH
- Esophageal Neoplasms surgery MeSH
- Anastomotic Leak epidemiology etiology MeSH
- Ischemic Preconditioning adverse effects methods MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Constriction, Pathologic epidemiology etiology MeSH
- Stomach surgery MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
Background Stomach preparation by ischaemic conditioning prior to oesophageal resection represents a potential method of reducing the risk of anastomotic complications. This study compares the results of the anastomotic complications of cervical anastomosis after oesophagectomy with a short interval after ischaemic conditioning (group S) and a long interval (group L). Methods Subjects undergoing oesophagectomy for carcinoma after ischaemic conditioning were divided into two groups. Group S had a median interval between ischaemic conditioning and resection of 20 days, while for group L the median interval was 49 days. Anastomotic leak and anastomotic stenosis in relation to the interval between ischaemic conditioning and actual resection were followed. Results After ischaemic conditioning, 33 subjects in total underwent surgery for carcinoma; 19 subjects in group S and 14 subjects in group L. Anastomotic leak incidence was comparable in both groups. Anastomotic stenosis occurred in 21% of cases in group S and 7% of cases in group L (not statistically significant). Conclusions A long interval between ischaemic conditioning and oesophagectomy does not adversely affect the postoperative complications. A lower incidence of anastomosis stenoses was found in subjects with a longer interval, however, given the size of our sample, the statistical significance was not demonstrated. Both groups seem comparable in surgical procedure course and postoperative complications.