Substernal reconstruction following esophagectomy

Operation of last resort?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The posterior mediastinum is the preferred location for reconstruction following esophagectomy. Occasionally alternative routes are required. We examined patient outcomes of esophageal reconstruction in order to determine whether substernal reconstruction (SR) is an equivalent alternative to orthotopic placement. Methods: Following IRB approval, we performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent an esophagectomy from 1988-2014. Only patients reconstructed with a gastric conduit and cervical anastomosis by either substernal or posterior mediastinal (PM) routes were included in the study. Endpoints assessed included anastomotic leak rate, post-operative complications, reoperation, hospital length of stay, and 30-and 90-day mortality. Results: Thirty-three patients underwent SR and 182 had a PM gastric conduit with cervical anastomosis. The SR pathology was predominantly benign while PM was mostly malignant. Sixteen SR patients had a delayed reconstruction after prior diversion. Mean hospital LOS was longer in the SR group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 30-and 90-day mortality. PM patients had significantly fewer respiratory complications (P < 0.04), reoperations (P < 0.04), and transfusions (P < 0.0001) and a trend towards fewer anastomotic leaks (17.1% vs. 30.3%; P < 0.09). Conclusions: This single institution experience demonstrated no significant difference in mortality between substernal and PM reconstruction following esophagectomy. However, SR was associated with significantly increased LOS and morbidity, including a trend toward increased anastomotic leaks. SR reconstruction should probably be considered an option of last resort.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)5040-5045
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Thoracic Disease
Volume9
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2017

Fingerprint

Esophagectomy
Anastomotic Leak
Reoperation
Mortality
Length of Stay
Stomach
Research Ethics Committees
Mediastinum
Pathology
Morbidity

Keywords

  • Esophagectomy
  • Outcomes
  • Reconstruction
  • Substernal

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Substernal reconstruction following esophagectomy : Operation of last resort? / Moremen, Jacob R.; Ceppa, Mimi; Rieger, Karen; Birdas, Thomas.

In: Journal of Thoracic Disease, Vol. 9, No. 12, 01.12.2017, p. 5040-5045.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{603c83f7727349e5a3d6dd772b8772f7,
title = "Substernal reconstruction following esophagectomy: Operation of last resort?",
abstract = "Background: The posterior mediastinum is the preferred location for reconstruction following esophagectomy. Occasionally alternative routes are required. We examined patient outcomes of esophageal reconstruction in order to determine whether substernal reconstruction (SR) is an equivalent alternative to orthotopic placement. Methods: Following IRB approval, we performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent an esophagectomy from 1988-2014. Only patients reconstructed with a gastric conduit and cervical anastomosis by either substernal or posterior mediastinal (PM) routes were included in the study. Endpoints assessed included anastomotic leak rate, post-operative complications, reoperation, hospital length of stay, and 30-and 90-day mortality. Results: Thirty-three patients underwent SR and 182 had a PM gastric conduit with cervical anastomosis. The SR pathology was predominantly benign while PM was mostly malignant. Sixteen SR patients had a delayed reconstruction after prior diversion. Mean hospital LOS was longer in the SR group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 30-and 90-day mortality. PM patients had significantly fewer respiratory complications (P < 0.04), reoperations (P < 0.04), and transfusions (P < 0.0001) and a trend towards fewer anastomotic leaks (17.1{\%} vs. 30.3{\%}; P < 0.09). Conclusions: This single institution experience demonstrated no significant difference in mortality between substernal and PM reconstruction following esophagectomy. However, SR was associated with significantly increased LOS and morbidity, including a trend toward increased anastomotic leaks. SR reconstruction should probably be considered an option of last resort.",
keywords = "Esophagectomy, Outcomes, Reconstruction, Substernal",
author = "Moremen, {Jacob R.} and Mimi Ceppa and Karen Rieger and Thomas Birdas",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.21037/jtd.2017.11.51",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "5040--5045",
journal = "Journal of Thoracic Disease",
issn = "2072-1439",
publisher = "Pioneer Bioscience Publishing Company (PBPC)",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Substernal reconstruction following esophagectomy

T2 - Operation of last resort?

AU - Moremen, Jacob R.

AU - Ceppa, Mimi

AU - Rieger, Karen

AU - Birdas, Thomas

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - Background: The posterior mediastinum is the preferred location for reconstruction following esophagectomy. Occasionally alternative routes are required. We examined patient outcomes of esophageal reconstruction in order to determine whether substernal reconstruction (SR) is an equivalent alternative to orthotopic placement. Methods: Following IRB approval, we performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent an esophagectomy from 1988-2014. Only patients reconstructed with a gastric conduit and cervical anastomosis by either substernal or posterior mediastinal (PM) routes were included in the study. Endpoints assessed included anastomotic leak rate, post-operative complications, reoperation, hospital length of stay, and 30-and 90-day mortality. Results: Thirty-three patients underwent SR and 182 had a PM gastric conduit with cervical anastomosis. The SR pathology was predominantly benign while PM was mostly malignant. Sixteen SR patients had a delayed reconstruction after prior diversion. Mean hospital LOS was longer in the SR group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 30-and 90-day mortality. PM patients had significantly fewer respiratory complications (P < 0.04), reoperations (P < 0.04), and transfusions (P < 0.0001) and a trend towards fewer anastomotic leaks (17.1% vs. 30.3%; P < 0.09). Conclusions: This single institution experience demonstrated no significant difference in mortality between substernal and PM reconstruction following esophagectomy. However, SR was associated with significantly increased LOS and morbidity, including a trend toward increased anastomotic leaks. SR reconstruction should probably be considered an option of last resort.

AB - Background: The posterior mediastinum is the preferred location for reconstruction following esophagectomy. Occasionally alternative routes are required. We examined patient outcomes of esophageal reconstruction in order to determine whether substernal reconstruction (SR) is an equivalent alternative to orthotopic placement. Methods: Following IRB approval, we performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent an esophagectomy from 1988-2014. Only patients reconstructed with a gastric conduit and cervical anastomosis by either substernal or posterior mediastinal (PM) routes were included in the study. Endpoints assessed included anastomotic leak rate, post-operative complications, reoperation, hospital length of stay, and 30-and 90-day mortality. Results: Thirty-three patients underwent SR and 182 had a PM gastric conduit with cervical anastomosis. The SR pathology was predominantly benign while PM was mostly malignant. Sixteen SR patients had a delayed reconstruction after prior diversion. Mean hospital LOS was longer in the SR group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 30-and 90-day mortality. PM patients had significantly fewer respiratory complications (P < 0.04), reoperations (P < 0.04), and transfusions (P < 0.0001) and a trend towards fewer anastomotic leaks (17.1% vs. 30.3%; P < 0.09). Conclusions: This single institution experience demonstrated no significant difference in mortality between substernal and PM reconstruction following esophagectomy. However, SR was associated with significantly increased LOS and morbidity, including a trend toward increased anastomotic leaks. SR reconstruction should probably be considered an option of last resort.

KW - Esophagectomy

KW - Outcomes

KW - Reconstruction

KW - Substernal

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85039779795&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85039779795&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.21037/jtd.2017.11.51

DO - 10.21037/jtd.2017.11.51

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 5040

EP - 5045

JO - Journal of Thoracic Disease

JF - Journal of Thoracic Disease

SN - 2072-1439

IS - 12

ER -