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

Article of interest: Assessment of morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy using a modified frailty index

Hodari A, et al. Assessment of morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy using a modified frailty index. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013 Oct;96(4):1240-1245.

Full-text for Emory users.

Results: A total of 2,095 patients were included in the analysis. Higher frailty scores were associated with a statistically significant increase in morbidity and mortality. A frailty score of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 had associated morbidity rates of 17.9% (142 of 795 patients), 25.1% (178 of 710 patients), 31.4% (126 of 401 patients), 34.4% (48 of 140 patients), 44.4% (16 of 36 patients), and 61.5% (8 of 13 patients), respectively. A frailty score of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 had associated mortality rates of 1.8% (14 of 795 patients), 3.8% (27 of 710 patients), 4% (16 of 401 patients), 7.1% (10 of 140 patients), 8.3% (3 of 36 patients), and 23.1% (3 of 13 patients), respectively. When using multivariate logistic regression for mortality comparing age, functional status, prealbumin, emergency surgery, wound class, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and sex, only age and frailty were statistically significant. The odds ratio was 31.84 for frailty (p = 0.015) and 1.05 (p = 0.001) for age.

Continue reading