Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Surgery ; 174(2): 247-251, 2023 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37270298

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage presentation after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy may vary on imaging. Such variations may influence anastomotic leakage management and outcomes. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for cancer between 2012 and 2019 in 2 referral centers were included. Anatomical patterns of anastomotic leakage were defined on imaging as follows: eso-mediastinal anastomotic leakage was a leak contained in the posterior mediastinum, eso-pleural anastomotic leakage was a leak involving the pleural cavity, and eso-bronchial anastomotic leakage was a leak communicating with the tracheobronchial tract. According to the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group definition, management and 90-day mortality were evaluated according to these patterns. RESULTS: Among 731 patients, 111 (15%) developed anastomotic leakage consisting of eso-mediastinal anastomotic leakage (n = 87, 79%), eso-pleural anastomotic leakage (n = 16, 14%) and eso-bronchial anastomotic leakage (n = 8, 7%). There was no difference among these groups regarding preoperative characteristics or time to anastomotic leakage diagnosis. There was a significant difference in initial management according to anastomotic leakage anatomic patterns (P = .001). More than half of patients who experienced eso-mediastinal anastomotic leakage (n = 46, 53%) were initially treated conservatively without requiring intervention (Esophageal Complications Consensus Group type I), whereas most patients with eso-pleural anastomotic leakage (n = 14, 87.5%) and all with eso-bronchial anastomotic leakage (n = 8, 100%) initially required interventional or surgical treatment (Esophageal Complications Consensus Group type II-III). Anastomotic leakage anatomic patterns had a statistically significant impact on 90-day mortality, intensive care unit stay, and total hospital stay (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Anastomotic leakage anatomic patterns after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy influence outcomes. Further studies are warranted to validate it in a prospective setting. Anastomotic leakage anatomic patterns may help in guiding anastomotic leakage management.


Asunto(s)
Fuga Anastomótica , Neoplasias Esofágicas , Humanos , Fuga Anastomótica/diagnóstico , Fuga Anastomótica/epidemiología , Fuga Anastomótica/etiología , Esofagectomía/efectos adversos , Esofagectomía/métodos , Anastomosis Quirúrgica/efectos adversos , Anastomosis Quirúrgica/métodos , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/diagnóstico , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA