• Sander Ubels, Moniek H P Verstegen, Bastiaan R Klarenbeek, Stefan Bouwense, Mark I van Berge Henegouwen, Freek Daams, Marc J van Det, Ewen A Griffiths, Jan Willem Haveman, Joos Heisterkamp, Grard Nieuwenhuijzen, Fatih Polat, Jeroen Schouten, Peter D Siersema, Pritam Singh, Bas Wijnhoven, Gerjon Hannink, Frans van Workum, Camiel Rosman, and TENTACLE—Esophagus Collaborative Group.
• Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
• Br J Surg. 2023 Jun 12; 110 (7): 852863852-863.

BackgroundAnastomotic leak is a severe complication after oesophagectomy. Anastomotic leak has diverse clinical manifestations and the optimal treatment strategy is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of treatment strategies for different manifestations of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed in 71 centres worldwide and included patients with anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy (2011-2019). Different primary treatment strategies were compared for three different anastomotic leak manifestations: interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (that is no intrathoracic collections; well perfused conduit); drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations; and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders.ResultsOf 1508 patients with anastomotic leak, 28.2 per cent (425 patients) had local manifestations, 36.3 per cent (548 patients) had intrathoracic manifestations, 9.6 per cent (145 patients) had conduit ischaemia/necrosis, 17.5 per cent (264 patients) were allocated after multiple imputation, and 8.4 per cent (126 patients) were excluded. After propensity score matching, no statistically significant differences in 90-day mortality were found regarding interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (risk difference 3.2 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.8 to 8.2 per cent), drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations (risk difference 5.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.2 to 12.8 per cent), and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis (risk difference 0.1 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -21.4 to 1.6 per cent). In general, less morbidity was found after less extensive primary treatment strategies.ConclusionLess extensive primary treatment of anastomotic leak was associated with less morbidity. A less extensive primary treatment approach may potentially be considered for anastomotic leak. Future studies are needed to confirm current findings and guide optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy.© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.

26 keywords...

hide…