Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy Significantly Improves Clinical Outcomes of Anastomotic Leakages After Esophagectomies

“Anastomotic leakages continue to be a highly challenging complication in esophageal surgery. According to the literature, the risk of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy ranges between 4 and 35%. The location of the anastomotic leakage is a significant factor in determining patient outcomes. Notwithstanding, cervical anastomoses bear a higher risk for leakage; the consequences of an intrathoracic (mediastinal) leakage are usually more devastating. A leakage into the thoracic cavity typically leads to mediastinitis and severe pneumonia and contributes to the significant mortality rates in esophageal surgery. In contrast, cervical anastomotic leakages tend to frequently present as wound infections often only requiring external drainage”

“The clinical outcomes strongly depend on an early diagnosis and appropriate treatment, which can extent over several weeks or even months. In the past, the mainstay of treatment was based on surgical repair, external drainage of sepsis via chest tubes, and interventional treatment modalities like endoscopic stent deployment or clipping. In 2008, endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (eVAC) therapy was successfully applied in patients with anastomotic leakages after esophagectomies. As in other vacuum-assisted wound therapies, eVAC cleans the defect by reducing the amount of exudative fluids and necrotic tissue, thus accelerating the healing process by contributing to a better local perfusion as well as through the formation of granulation tissue.”

Continue reading

Surgeon’s choice: TEP or TAPP for recurrent inguinal hernia repair?

One discussion involved the comparison of outcomes for TEP and TAPP for hernia repair.


Reference: Kockerling F, et al. TEP or TAPP for recurrent inguinal hernia repair-registered-based comparison of the outcome. Surgical Endoscopy. 2017 Oct;31(10):3872-3882. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5416-1

Summary: To date, no randomized trials have been conducted to compare the TEP vs TAPP outcome for recurrent inguinal hernia repair. Between September 1, 2009 and August 31, 2013 data were entered into the Herniamed Registry on a total of 2246 patients with recurrent inguinal hernia repair following previous open primary operation in either TAPP (n = 1,464) or TEP technique (n = 782).

  • TAPP group: recurrent repair was performed for n=974/1,464 (66.5%) patients after suture and n=490/1,464 (33.5%) after mesh repair.
  • TEP group: recurrent repair was performed for n=554/782 (70.8%) patients following previous suture repair and for n=228/782 (29.2%) after mesh repair.

No significant differences were found between the recurrent operations in TEP vs TAPP technique with regard to the intraoperative complications, complication-related reoperations, re-recurrence rates, rates of pain at rest, pain on exertion, or chronic pain requiring treatment. Unfavorable results were identified only with regard to the higher seroma rates associated with TAPP; these responded to conservative treatment.

In summary, both TEP and TAPP can be recommended as effective techniques for treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia following previous open primary operation. The decision to use one or the other technique should be based solely on the surgeon’s expertise. The registry study presented here thus confirms the recommendations in the guidelines on laparo-endoscopic treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia following previous open primary operation.