Short-term Outcomes of Different Techniques for Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Before Esophagectomy: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ischemia at the anastomotic site plays a critical role determinant in the development of anastomosis-related complications after esophagectomy. Gastric ischemic conditioning (GIC) before esophagectomy has been described to improve the vascular perfusion at the tip of the gastric conduit with a potential effect on anastomotic leak (AL) and stenosis (AS) risk minimization. Laparoscopic (LapGIC) and angioembolization (AngioGIC) techniques have been reported. PURPOSE: Compare short-term outcomes among different GIC techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. One-step esophagectomy (noGIC), LapGIC, and AngioGIC were compared. Primary outcomes were AL, AS, and gastric conduit necrosis (GCN). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were used to assess relative inference. RESULTS: Overall, 1760 patients (14 studies) were included. Of those, 1028 patients (58.4%) underwent noGIC, 593 (33.6%) LapGIC, and 139 (8%) AngioGIC. AL was reduced for LapGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.68; 95% CrI 0.47-0.98) and AngioGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.52; 95% CrI 0.31-0.93). Similarly, AS was reduced for LapGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.32; 95% CrI 0.12-0.68) and AngioGIC versus noGIC (RR=1.30; 95% CrI 0.65-2.46). The indirect comparison, assessed with the network methodology, did not show any differences for LapGIC versus AngioGIC in terms of postoperative AL and AS risk. No differences were found for GCN, pulmonary complications, overall complications, hospital length of stay, and 30-day mortality among different treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to noGIC, both LapGIC and AngioGIC before esophagectomy seem equivalent and associated with a reduced risk for postoperative AL and AS.

Impact of Thoracic Duct Resection on Long-Term Survival After Esophagectomy: Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Radical esophagectomy, including thoracic duct resection (TDR), has been proposed to improve regional lymphadenectomy and possibly reduce the risk of locoregional recurrence. However, because of its impact on immunoregulation, some authors have expressed concerns about its possible detrimental effect on long-term survival. The purpose of this review was to assess the influence of TDR on long-term survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched through 15 March 2024. Overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were primary outcomes. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD), risk ratio (RR), standardized mean difference (SMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology was employed to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: The analysis included six studies with 5756 patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy. TDR was reported in 49.1%. Patients' ages ranged from 27 to 79 years and 86% were males. At 4-year follow-up, the multivariate meta-analysis showed similar results for the comparison noTDR versus TDR in term of OS [- 0.8 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 3.1, 1.3], CSS (0.1 months, 95% CI - 0.9, 1.2), and DFS (1.5 months, 95% CI - 2.6, 5.5). TDR was associated with a significantly higher number of harvested mediastinal lymph nodes (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.01-1.13) and higher risk of postoperative chylothorax (RR = 1.32; 95% CI 1.04-2.23). Anastomotic leak and pulmonary complications were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: TDR seems not to improve long-term OS, CSS, and DFS regardless of tumor stage. Routine TDR should not be routinely recommended during esophagectomy.

Effect of powered circular stapler in colorectal anastomosis after left-sided colic resection: systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leak (AL) remains the most important complication after left-sided colic anastomoses and technical complications during anastomotic construction are responsible of higher leakage incidence. Powered circular stapler (PCS) in colorectal surgery has been introduced in order to reduce technical errors and post-operative complications due to the manual circular stapler (MCS). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. An electronic systematic search was performed using Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase of studies comparing PCS and MCS. The incidence of AL, anastomotic bleeding (AB), conversion, and reoperation were assessed. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42024512644. RESULTS: Five observational studies were eligible for inclusion reporting on 2379 patients. The estimated pooled Risk Ratios for AL and AB rates following PCS were significantly lower than those observed with MCS (0.44 and 0.23, respectively; both with p < 0.01). Conversion and reoperation rate did not show any significant difference: 0.41 (95% CI 0.09-1.88; p = 0.25) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.33-1.84; p = 0.57); respectively. CONCLUSION: The use of PCS demonstrates a lower incidence of AL and AB compared to MCS but does not exhibit a discernible influence on reintervention or conversion rates. The call for future randomized clinical trials aims to definitively clarify these issues and contribute to further advancements in refining surgical strategies for left-sided colonic resection.

Effect of complete mesocolic excision (cme) on long-term survival after right colectomy for cancer: multivariate meta-analysis and restricted mean survival time estimation.

INTRODUCTION: Debate exists concerning the impact of complete mesocolic excision (CME) on long-term oncological outcomes. The aim of this review was to condense the updated literature and assess the effect of CME on long-term survival after right colectomy for cancer. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through July 2023. The included studies evaluated the effect of CME on survival. The primary outcome was long-term overall survival. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD), hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. GRADE methodology was used to summarize the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Ten studies (3665 patients) were included. Overall, 1443 (39.4%) underwent CME. The RMSTD analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, stage I-III CME patients lived 2.5 months (95% CI 1.1-4.1) more on average compared with noCME patients. Similarly, stage III patients that underwent CME lived longer compared to noCME patients at 55-month follow-up (6.1 months; 95% CI 3.4-8.5). The time-dependent HRs analysis for CME vs. noCME (stage I-III disease) shows a higher mortality hazard in patients with noCME at 6 months (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.71), 12 months (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43-0.73), and 24 months (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.92) up to 27 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that CME is associated with unclear OS benefit in stage I-III disease. Caution is recommended to avoid overestimation of the effect of CME in stage III disease since the marginal benefit of a more extended resection may have been influenced by tumor biology/molecular profile and multimodal adjuvant treatments.

The Impact of Ineffective Esophageal Motility on Patients Undergoing Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and characterize outcomes of MSA in patients with IEM. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MSA improves patients with gastroesophageal reflux and normal motility. However, many patients have IEM, which could impact the outcomes of MSA and discourage use. METHODS: An international, multi-institutional case control study of IEM patients undergoing MSA matched to normal patients was performed. Primary outcomes were new onset dysphagia and need for postoperative interventions. RESULTS: A total of 105 IEM patients underwent MSA with matching controls. At 1 year after MSA: GERD-Health Related Quality of Life was similar; DeMeester scores in IEM patients improved to 15.7 and 8.5 in controls ( P = 0.021); and normalization of the DeMeester score for IEM = 61.7% and controls = 73.1% ( P = 0.079).In IEM patients, 10/12 (83%) with preop dysphagia had resolution; 11/66 (17%) had new onset dysphagia and 55/66 (83%) never had dysphagia. Comparatively, in non-IEM patients, 22/24 (92%) had dysphagia resolve; 2/24 (8%) had persistent dysphagia; 7/69 (10%) had new onset dysphagia, and 62/69 (90%) never had dysphagia.Overall, 19 (18%) IEM patients were dilated after MSA, whereas 12 (11%) non-IEM patients underwent dilation ( P = 0.151). Nine (9%) patients in both groups had their device explanted. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IEM undergoing MSA demonstrate improved quality of life and reduction in acid exposure. Key differences in IEM patients include lower rates of objective GERD resolution, lower resolution of existing dysphagia, higher rates of new onset dysphagia and need for dilation. GERD patients with IEM should be counselled about these possibilities.

Improving the Diagnostic Yield of High-Resolution Esophageal Manometry for GERD: The "Straight Leg-Raise" International Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The straight leg raise (SLR) maneuver during high-resolution manometry (HRM) can assess esophagogastric junction (EGJ) barrier function by measuring changes in intraesophageal pressure (IEP) when intra-abdominal pressure is increased. We aimed to determine whether increased esophageal pressure during SLR predicts pathologic esophageal acid exposure time (AET). METHODS: Adult patients with persistent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms undergoing HRM and pH-impedance or wireless pH study off proton pump inhibitor were prospectively studied between July 2021 and March 2022. After the HRM Chicago 4.0 protocol, patients were requested to elevate 1 leg at 45º for 5 seconds while supine. The SLR maneuver was considered effective when intra-abdominal pressure increased by 50%. IEPs were recorded 5 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter at baseline and during SLR. GERD was defined as AET greater than 6%. RESULTS: The SLR was effective in 295 patients (81%), 115 (39%) of whom had an AET greater than 6%. Hiatal hernia (EGJ type 2 or 3) was seen in 135 (46%) patients. Compared with patients with an AET less than 6%, peak IEP during SLR was significantly higher in the GERD group (29.7 vs 13.9 mm Hg; P < .001). Using receiver operating characteristic analysis, an increase of 11 mm Hg of peak IEP from baseline during SLR was the optimal cut-off value to predict an AET greater than 6% (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.84; sensitivity, 79%; and specificity, 85%), regardless of the presence of hiatal hernia. On multivariable analysis, an IEP pressure increase during the SLR maneuver, EGJ contractile integral, EGJ subtype 2, and EGJ subtype 3, were found to be significant predictors of AET greater than 6% CONCLUSIONS: The SLR maneuver can predict abnormal an AET, thereby increasing the diagnostic value of HRM when GERD is suspected. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ID: NCT04813029.

Effect of Anastomotic Leak on Long-Term Survival After Esophagectomy: Multivariate Meta-analysis and Restricted Mean Survival Times Examination.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak (AL) is a serious complication after esophagectomy. It is associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased costs, and increased risk for 90-day mortality. Controversy exists concerning the impact of AL on survival. This study was designed to investigate the effect of AL on long-term survival after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through October 30, 2022. The included studies evaluated the effect of AL on long-term survival. Primary outcome was long-term overall survival. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD), hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. RESULTS: Thirteen studies (7118 patients) were included. Overall, 727 (10.2%) patients experienced AL. The RMSTD analysis shows that at 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months, patients not experiencing AL live an average of 0.7 (95% CI 0.2-1.2; p < 0.001), 1.9 (95% CI 1.1-2.6; p < 0.001), 2.6 (95% CI 1.6-3.7; p < 0.001), 3.4 (95% CI 1.9-4.9; p < 0.001), and 4.2 (95% CI 2.1-6.4; p < 0.001) months longer compared with those with AL, respectively. The time-dependent HRs analysis for AL versus no AL shows a higher mortality hazard in patients with AL at 3 (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.54-2.34), 6 (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.39-1.75), 12 (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.24-1.54), and 24 months (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02-1.31). CONCLUSIONS: This study seems to suggest a modest clinical impact of AL on long-term OS after esophagectomy. Patients who experience AL seem to have a higher mortality hazard during the first 2 years of follow-up.

Short-term outcomes of different esophagojejunal anastomotic techniques during laparoscopic total gastrectomy: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different techniques have been described for esophagojejunostomy (EJ) during laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for gastric cancer. Linear stapled techniques include overlap (OL) and functional end-to-end anastomosis (FEEA) while single staple technique (SST), hemi-double staple technique (HDST), and OrVil® are circular stapled approaches. Nowadays, the choice among techniques for EJ depends on operating surgeon personal preference. PURPOSE: To compare short-term outcomes of different EJ techniques during LTG. METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. OL, FEEA, SST, HDST, and OrVil® were compared. Primary outcomes were anastomotic leak (AL) and stenosis (AS). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to measure relative inference. RESULTS: Overall, 3177 patients (20 studies) were included. The technique for EJ was SST (n = 1026; 32.9%), OL (n = 826; 26.5%), FEEA (n = 752; 24.1%), OrVil® (n = 317; 10.1%), and HDST (n = 196; 6.4%). AL was comparable for OL vs. FEEA (RR = 0.82; 95% CrI 0.47-1.49), OL vs. SST (RR = 0.55; 95% CrI 0.27-1.21), OL vs. OrVil® (RR = 0.54; 95% CrI 0.32-1.22), and OL vs. HDST (RR = 0.65; 95% CrI 0.28-1.63). Similarly, AS was similar for OL vs. FEEA (RR = 0.46; 95% CrI 0.18-1.28), OL vs. SST (RR = 0.89; 95% CrI 0.39-2.15), OL vs. OrVil® (RR = 0.36; 95% CrI 0.14-1.02), and OL vs. HDST (RR = 0.61; 95% CrI 0.31-1.21). Anastomotic bleeding, time to soft diet resumption, pulmonary complications, hospital length of stay, and mortality were comparable while operative time was reduced for FEEA. CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis shows similar postoperative AL and AS risk when comparing OL, FEEA, SST, HDST, and OrVil® techniques. Similarly, no differences were found for anastomotic bleeding, operative time, soft diet resumption, pulmonary complications, hospital length of stay and 30-day mortality.

Management of paraesophageal hiatus hernia: recommendations following a European expert Delphi consensus.

AIMS: There is considerable controversy regarding optimal management of patients with paraesophageal hiatus hernia (pHH). This survey aims at identifying recommended strategies for work-up, surgical therapy, and postoperative follow-up using Delphi methodology. METHODS: We conducted a 2-round, 33-question, web-based Delphi survey on perioperative management (preoperative work-up, surgical procedure and follow-up) of non-revisional, elective pHH among European surgeons with expertise in upper-GI. Responses were graded on a 5-point Likert scale and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items from the questionnaire were defined as "recommended" or "discouraged" if positive or negative concordance among participants was > 75%. Items with lower concordance levels were labelled "acceptable" (neither recommended nor discouraged). RESULTS: Seventy-two surgeons with a median (IQR) experience of 23 (14-30) years from 17 European countries participated (response rate 60%). The annual median (IQR) individual and institutional caseload was 25 (15-36) and 40 (28-60) pHH-surgeries, respectively. After Delphi round 2, "recommended" strategies were defined for preoperative work-up (endoscopy), indication for surgery (typical symptoms and/or chronic anemia), surgical dissection (hernia sac dissection and resection, preservation of the vagal nerves, crural fascia and pleura, resection of retrocardial lipoma) and reconstruction (posterior crurorrhaphy with single stitches, lower esophageal sphincter augmentation (Nissen or Toupet), and postoperative follow-up (contrast radiography). In addition, we identified "discouraged" strategies for preoperative work-up (endosonography), and surgical reconstruction (crurorrhaphy with running sutures, tension-free hiatus repair with mesh only). In contrast, many items from the questionnaire including most details of mesh augmentation (indication, material, shape, placement, and fixation technique) were "acceptable". CONCLUSIONS: This multinational European Delphi survey represents the first expert-led process to identify recommended strategies for the management of pHH. Our work may be useful in clinical practice to guide the diagnostic process, increase procedural consistency and standardization, and to foster collaborative research.

EAES Multidisciplinary Rapid Guideline: systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment and evidence-informed recommendations on the surgical management of paraesophageal hernias.

BACKGROUND: New evidence has emerged since latest guidelines on the management of paraesophageal hernia, and guideline development methodology has evolved. Members of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery have prioritized the management of paraesophageal hernia to be addressed by pertinent recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on paraesophageal hernias, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. METHODS: We performed three systematic reviews, and we summarized and appraised the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. A panel of general and upper gastrointestinal surgeons, gastroenterologists and a patient advocate discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost and use of resources, moderated by a Guidelines International Network-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: The panel suggests surgery over conservative management for asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic paraesophageal hernias (conditional recommendation), and recommends conservative management over surgery for asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic paraesophageal hernias in frail patients (strong recommendation). Further, the panel suggests mesh over sutures for hiatal closure in paraesophageal hernia repair, fundoplication over gastropexy in elective paraesophageal hernia repair, and gastropexy over fundoplication in patients who have cardiopulmonary instability and require emergency paraesophageal hernia repair (conditional recommendation). A strong recommendation means that the proposed course of action is appropriate for the vast majority of patients. A conditional recommendation means that most patients would opt for the proposed course of action, and joint decision-making of the surgeon and the patient is required. Accompanying evidence summaries and evidence-to-decision frameworks should be read when using the recommendations. This guideline applies to adult patients with moderate to large paraesophageal hernias type II to IV with at least 50% of the stomach herniated to the thoracic cavity. The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/j7q7Gn . CONCLUSION: An interdisciplinary panel provides recommendations on key topics on the management of paraesophageal hernias using highest methodological standards and following a transparent process. GUIDELINE REGISTRATION NUMBER: PREPARE-2023CN018.

Three-year survival and distribution of lymph node metastases in gastric cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from a European randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Adequate lymphadenectomy is an important step in gastrectomy for cancer, with a modified D2 lymphadenectomy being recommended for advanced gastric cancers. When assessing a novel technique for the treatment of gastric cancer, lymphadenectomy should be non-inferior. The aim of this study was to assess completeness of lymphadenectomy and distribution patterns between open total gastrectomy (OTG) and minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) in the era of peri-operative chemotherapy. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of the STOMACH trial, a randomized clinical trial in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients were randomized between OTG and MITG for advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Three-year survival, number of resected lymph nodes, completeness of lymphadenectomy, and distribution patterns were examined. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients were included in this trial and randomized between OTG (49 patients) and MITG (47 patients). No difference in 3-year survival was observed, this was 57.1% in OTG group versus 46.8% in MITG group (P = 0.186). The mean number of examined lymph nodes per patient was 44.3 ± 16.7 in the OTG group and 40.7 ± 16.3 in the MITG group (P = 0.209). D2 lymphadenectomy of 71.4% in the OTG group and 74.5% in the MITG group was performed according to the surgeons; according to the pathologist compliance to D2 lymphadenectomy was 30% in the OTG group and 36% in the MITG group. Tier 2 lymph node metastases (stations 7-12) were observed in 19.6% in the OTG group versus 43.5% in the MITG group (P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: No difference in 3-year survival was observed between open and minimally invasive gastrectomy. No differences were observed for lymph node yield and type of lymphadenectomy. Adherence to D2 lymphadenectomy reported by the pathologist was markedly low.

Comparative outcomes of Toupet fundoplication and magnetic sphincter augmentation.

Laparoscopic fundoplication is the current surgical gold standard for the treatment of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a less invasive, standardized, and reversible option to restore competency of the lower esophageal sphincter. A comparative cohort study was conducted at a tertiary-care referral center on patients with typical GERD symptoms treated with systematic crural repair combined with Toupet fundoplication or MSA. Primary study outcome was decrease of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) score. Between January 2014 and December 2021, a total of 199 patients (60.3% female, median [Q1-Q3] age: 51.0 [40.0-61.0]) underwent MSA (n = 130) or Toupet fundoplication (n = 69). Operative time and hospital stay were significantly shorter in MSA patients (P < 0.0001). At a median follow-up of 12.0 [12.0-24.0] months, there was a statistically significant decrease of GERD-HRQL score in both patient groups (P = 0.001). The mean delta values did not significantly differ between groups (P = 0.7373). The incidence of severe gas bloating symptoms was similar in the two groups (P = 0.7604), but the rate of persistent postoperative dysphagia was greater in MSA patients (P = 0.0009). Six (8.7%) patients in the Toupet group had recurrent hiatal hernia requiring revisional surgery in one (1.4%). In the MSA group, eight (7.9%) patients necessitated through-the-scope balloon dilation for relief of dysphagia, and six patients had the device removed (4.6%) because of persistent dysphagia (n = 3), device disconnection (n = 1), persistent reflux (n = 1) or need of magnetic resonance (n = 1). Toupet and MSA procedures provide similar clinical outcomes, but MSA is associated with a greater risk of reoperation. Randomized clinical trials comparing fundoplication and MSA are eagerly awaited.

Effect of Increased Intra-abdominal Pressure on the Esophagogastric Junction: A Systematic Review.

With the advent of high-resolution esophageal manometry, it is recognized that the antireflux barrier receives a contribution from both the lower esophageal sphincter (intrinsic sphincter) and the muscle of the crural diaphragm (extrinsic sphincter). Further, an increased intra-abdominal pressure is a major force responsible for an adaptive response of a competent sphincter or the disruption of the esophagogastric junction resulting in gastroesophageal reflux, especially in the presence of a hiatal hernia. This review describes how the pressure dynamics in the lower esophageal sphincter were discovered and measured over time and how this has influenced the development of antireflux surgery.

High-Pressure Tactics: Jackhammer Esophagus-Diagnosing Is Easier than Treating.

Diagnosis of esophageal disorders is well ahead of available treatment options. With HRM, for example, one can identify numerous conditions and their variants, which may lose meaning if the clinical and therapeutic implications of these subclassifications are limited. We report an exemplary case of a patient with hiatal hernia complaining of reflux, dysphagia, and chest pain refractory to medical treatment. Jackhammer esophagus was diagnosed and a hybrid approach consisting of POEM and concomitant crural repair and Dor fundoplication is proposed.

Comparison of pleural drain amylase and serum C-reactive protein for early detection of intrathoracic esophago-gastric anastomotic leaks.

INTRODUCTION: Early detection of anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy has the potential to reduce hospital length of stay and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive value of pleural drain amylase and serum C-reactive protein for the early diagnosis of leak. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted on 121 patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and intrathoracic gastric conduit reconstruction. Pleural drain amylase levels were measured daily until postoperative day (POD) 5 and compared with CRP values measured on POD 3, 5, and 7. Specificity and sensitivity for both tests, and the respective ROC curves, were calculated. RESULTS: Anastomotic leak occurred in 12 patients. There was a significant statistical association between pleural drain amylase and serum CRP levels and the presence of anastomotic leakage. Pleural drain amylase cutoff of 209 IU/L on POD 2 yielded a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 94% (AUC = 0.813), whereas CRP cutoff value of 22.5 mg/dL on POD 3 yielded a sensitivity of 56% and a specificity of 92% (AUC = 0.772). The negative likelihood ratio of pleural drain amylase was 0.27 and 0.12 on POD 2 and 5, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between ROC curves of amylase and CRP on POD 3 and 5 (p = 0.79 and p = 0.14, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Pleural drain amylase seems more efficient than serum CRP for early detection of esophago-gastric anastomotic leak. The practice of monitoring drain amylase and CRP may allow safer implementation of enhanced postoperative recovery pathway.

Identifying a core symptom set triggering radiological and endoscopic investigations for suspected recurrent esophago-gastric cancer: a modified Delphi consensus process.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of evidence-based guidelines regarding surveillance for recurrence after esophageal and gastric (OG) cancer surgical resection, and which symptoms should prompt endoscopic or radiological investigations for recurrence. The aim of this study was to develop a core symptom set using a modified Delphi consensus process that should guide clinicians to carry out investigations to look for suspected recurrent OG cancer in previously asymptomatic patients. METHODS: A web-based survey of 42 questions was sent to surgeons performing OG cancer resections at high volume centers. The first section evaluated the structure of follow-up and the second, determinants of follow-up. Two rounds of a modified Delphi consensus process and a further consensus workshop were used to determine symptoms warranting further investigations. Symptoms with a 75% consensus agreement as suggestive of recurrent cancer were included in the core symptom set. RESULTS: 27 surgeons completed the questionnaires. A total of 70.3% of centers reported standardized surveillance protocols, whereas 3.7% of surgeons did not undertake any surveillance in asymptomatic patients after OG cancer resection. In asymptomatic patients, 40.1% and 25.9% of centers performed routine imaging and endoscopy, respectively. The core set that reached consensus, consisted of eight symptoms that warranted further investigations included; dysphagia to solid food, dysphagia to liquids, vomiting, abdominal pain, chest pain, regurgitation of foods, unexpected weight loss and progressive hoarseness of voice. CONCLUSION: There is global variation in monitoring patients after OG cancer resection. Eight symptoms were identified by the consensus process as important in prompting radiological or endoscopic investigation for suspected recurrent malignancy. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to link surveillance strategies to survival outcomes and evaluate prognostic value.

The Effect of Postoperative Complications After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy on Long-term Survival: An International Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is a technically challenging procedure, associated with significant morbidity. The introduction of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has reduced postoperative morbidity. OBJECTIVE: Although the short-term effect on complications is increasingly being recognized, the impact on long-term survival remains unclear. This study aims to investigate the association between postoperative complications following MIE and long-term survival. METHODS: Data were collected from the EsoBenchmark Collaborative composed by 13 high-volume, expert centers routinely performing MIE. Patients operated between June 1, 2011 and May 31, 2016 were included. Complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification. To correct for short-term effects of postoperative complications on mortality, patients who died within 90 days postoperative were excluded. Primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 915 patients were included with a mean follow-up time of 30.8 months (standard deviation 17.9). Complications occurred in 542 patients (59.2%) of which 50.2% had a CD grade ≥III complication [ie, (re)intervention, organ dysfunction, or death]. The incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) was 135 of 915 patients (14.8%) of which 84 patients were classified as a CD grade ≥III. Multivariable analysis showed a significantly deteriorated long-term survival in all patients with AL [hazard ratio (HR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.24]. This inverse relation was most distinct when AL was scored as a CD grade ≥III (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.30-2.58). For all other complications, no significant association with long-term survival was found. CONCLUSION: The occurrence and severity of AL, but not overall complications, after MIE negatively affect long-term survival of esophageal cancer patients.

The role of magnetic sphincter augmentation in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) has been designed as a less disruptive and more standardized laparoscopic surgical procedure than fundoplication for patients with early stage gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We analyzed the more recent literature in search of updates regarding indications, technique, perioperative management, and long-term outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the years, the procedure of MSA has evolved to including full hiatus repair rather than relying on the preservation of the phreno-esophageal ligament. Restoring the mechanical synergy between the lower esophageal sphincter and the crural diaphragm has the potential to further enhance the antireflux barrier. The adoption of this approach has led to expand the indications from early stage disease to different scenarios including patients with high esophageal acid exposure, atypical symptoms, large hiatal hernias, Barrett's esophagus, postbariatric surgery, and previously failed fundoplication. SUMMARY: MSA has a favorable side-effect profile and is highly effective in reducing typical reflux symptoms, medication dependency, and esophageal acid exposure. Excellent outcomes have been confirmed over a 12-year follow-up, indicating that the operation has the potential to prevent GERD progression. Further studies are needed to confirm the cost-effectiveness of this procedure in patients with more advanced disease-stage and prior gastric surgery. A randomized control trial comparing MSA with fundoplication could raise the level of evidence and the strength of recommendation.

Open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results of a European randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection with adequate lymphadenectomy is regarded the only curative option for gastric cancer. Regarding minimally invasive techniques, mainly Asian studies showed comparable oncological and short-term postoperative outcomes. The incidence of gastric cancer is lower in the Western population and patients often present with more advanced stages of disease. Therefore, the reproducibility of these Asian results in the Western population remains to be investigated. METHODS: A randomized trial was performed in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients with an indication for total gastrectomy who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible for inclusion and randomized between open total gastrectomy (OTG) or minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG). Primary outcome was oncological safety, measured as the number of resected lymph nodes and radicality. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, recovery and 1-year survival. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and June 2018, 96 patients were included in this trial. Forty-nine patients were randomized to OTG and 47 to MITG. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 43.4 ± 17.3 in OTG and 41.7 ± 16.1 in MITG (p = 0.612). Forty-eight patients in the OTG group had a R0 resection and 44 patients in the MITG group (p = 0.617). One-year survival was 90.4% in OTG and 85.5% in MITG (p = 0.701). No significant differences were found regarding postoperative complications and recovery. CONCLUSION: These findings provide evidence that MITG after neoadjuvant therapy is not inferior regarding oncological quality of resection in comparison to OTG in Western patients with resectable gastric cancer. In addition, no differences in postoperative complications and recovery were seen.

Three-year clinical experience with magnetic sphincter augmentation and laparoscopic fundoplication.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a surgical intervention for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) which has been evaluated in numerous studies and has shown beneficial effects. Long-term effectiveness data for MSA as well as laparoscopic fundoplication (LF) in patients with GERD are needed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the 3-year outcomes for MSA and LF in patients with GERD. METHODS: This prospective, multi-center, observational registry study evaluated MSA and LF in clinical practice over 3 years (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01624506). Data collection included baseline characteristics, reflux symptoms, medication use, satisfaction and complications. Post-surgical evaluations were collected at yearly intervals. RESULTS: Between December 2009 and December 2014, 631 patients (465 MSA and 166 LF) were enrolled in the registry. Both MSA and LF resulted in improvements in total GERD-HRQL score (mean reduction in GERD-HRQL from baseline to 3 years post-surgery: MSA 22.0 to 4.6 and LF 23.6 to 4.9) and in satisfaction (GERD-HRQL satisfaction increase from baseline to 3 years: MSA 4.6% to 78.2% and LF 3.7% to 76.5%). Most patients were able to belch as needed with both therapies (MSA 97.6% and LF 91.7% at 3 years). MSA allowed a higher percentage of patients the ability to vomit as needed (MSA 91.2% and LF 68.0% at 3 years). PPI usage declined from baseline to 3 years for both groups after surgery (MSA 97.8% to 24.2% and LF 95.8% to 19.5%). The mean procedure time was shorter for MSA than for LF. Intraoperative and procedure-related complication rates (≤ 2%) were low for both therapies. CONCLUSIONS: This 3-year prospective observational registry study contributes to the mounting evidence for the effectiveness of MSA and LF. Despite the more severe nature of GERD in the LF group, the clinical outcomes for MSA and LF were favorable from an effectiveness and safety standpoint.