Routine Radiologic Assessment for Anastomotic Leak Is Not Necessary in Asymptomatic Patients After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leaks (AL) are a major source of post-esophagectomy morbidity and patients are often initially asymptomatic. Debate exists on timing and utility of imaging to detect AL post-esophagectomy. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and timing of radiographic AL evaluation in esophageal cancer patients post-esophagectomy. METHODS: A retrospective database of esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy at a single institution from 2004 to 2020 was used to determine the utilization, timing, and sensitivity of radiologic testing for AL post-esophagectomy. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were identified of which 37 (49%) had a cervical anastomosis. Sixty-four (84%) underwent 71 "asymptomatic radiographic leak tests" (ARLT), 7 of which had 2 different tests, including: 41 fluoroscopic esophagrams (58%), 18 CT-esophagrams (25%), and 12 upper GI studies (17%). Seventeen patients (22%) developed clinical signs of AL (hemodynamic instability, leukocytosis) and underwent "symptomatic radiographic leak tests" (SRLT) with fluoroscopic esophagram (n = 9, 12%), CT-esophagram (n = 7, 9%), or upper GI study (n = 1, 1%). ARLT and SRLT were positive in 2/64 (3%) and 17/17 (100%) patients, respectively, for 19 total ALs (25%). Among the 17 SRLT( +) patients, 1 was also ARLT( +), 13 were initially ARLT( -), and 3 were not evaluated by ARLT. The median postoperative day for ARLT and SRLT was 4.0 (IQR 3.0-5.5) and 9.0 days (IQR 6.0-13.0), respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.005). The sensitivity and specificity of ARLT for detecting AL were 13.3% and 100.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low ARLT sensitivity, routine use of imaging to detect asymptomatic ALs post-esophagectomy may be limited. Symptomatic ALs were often present in a delayed fashion, even after initial negative imaging.

Esophageal perforation management using a multidisciplinary minimally invasive treatment algorithm.

BACKGROUND: The surgical management of esophageal perforation (EP) often results in mortality and significant morbidity. Recent less invasive approaches to EP management include endoscopic luminal stenting and minimally invasive surgical therapies. We wished to establish therapeutic efficacy of minimally invasive therapies in a consecutive series of patients. STUDY DESIGN: An IRB-approved retrospective review of all acute EPs between 2007 and 2013 at a single institution was performed. Patient demographic, clinical outcomes data, and hospital charges were collected. RESULTS: We reviewed 76 consecutive patients with acute EP presenting to our tertiary care center. Median age was 64 ± 16 years (range 25 to 87 years), with 50 men and 26 women. Ninety percent of EPs were in the distal esophagus, with 67% of iatrogenic perforations occurring within 4 cm of the gastroesophageal junction. All patients were treated within 24 hours of initial presentation with a removable covered esophageal stent. Leak occlusion was confirmed within 48 hours of esophageal stent placement in 68 patients. Median lengths of ICU and hospital stay were 3 and 10 days, respectively (range 1 to 86 days). One-third of the patients were noted to have prolonged intubation (>7 days) and pneumonia that required a tracheostomy. One in-hospital (1.3%) mortality occurred within 30 days. Median total hospital charges for EP were $85,945. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopically placed removable esophageal stents with minimally invasive repair of the perforation and feeding access is an effective treatment method for patients with EP. This multidisciplinary method enabled us to care for severely ill patients while minimizing morbidity and mortality and avoiding open esophageal surgery.