Abstract
Background
It remains unclear what is the ideal conduit shape. The aim of this study was to evaluate association between specific gastric conduit morphology, considering width and length, with its perfusion and the incidence of anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy.
Methods
Patients who underwent an esophagectomy with cervical esophagogastric anastomosis between 2015 and 2021 were evaluated. Indocyanine green angiography was performed to evaluate gastric conduit perfusion, and ingress index (arterial inflow) and ingress time (venous outflow) were measured. The conduit width at the middle of the conduit and the short gastric length as the length from the last gastroepiploic branch to the perfusion assessment point were measured. Propensity score matching was performed to compare wide conduits with narrow conduits. Narrow and wide conduits were defined as < 4 and ≥ 5 cm, respectively.
Results
Three hundred fifty-eight patients were reviewed. After applying matching, the wide conduits had higher ingress index (48.2 vs 33.3%, p < 0.001) and shorter ingress time (51.2 vs 66.3 s, p = 0.004) compared to the narrow conduits. Including the short gastric length in analysis, creating a wide conduit is a significant factor for better ingress index (p = 0.001), especially when the perfusion assessment point is 5 cm or farther from the last gastroepiploic branch. Anastomotic leaks did not differ between the groups.
Conclusions
Conduit width is a significant factor of gastric conduit perfusion, especially when the estimated anastomotic site was > 5 cm from the last gastroepiploic branch. Wide conduits seem to have better perfusion and creating a wider conduit might reduce anastomotic leaks.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction is the most common surgery for esophageal cancer. There are many ways to shape the gastric conduit during an esophagectomy; however, it is unclear what is the ideal shape for the gastric conduit. The creation of narrower gastric conduits allows for longer distal margins as well as longer conduits when following the greater curvature of the stomach. In a meta-analysis study, leak rates did not significantly differ between whole-stomach conduits and narrower gastric tube conduits.1 Wide conduits are reported to have better perfusion than narrow conduits because the vascular plexus in the stomach wall is preserved.2 On the other hand, narrow conduits have sufficient length to perform an anastomosis in the neck.3 There is limited knowledge of what shape has the best perfusion when evaluating gastric conduit perfusion quantitatively.
Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence angiography allows for the analysis of arterial inflow and venous outflow to measure the perfusion of the conduit, which if impaired can lead to higher leak rates after surgery. The length from the blood supply is an important factor of gastric conduit perfusion at the tip of the conduit, as perfusion greatly depends on the distance from the last gastroepiploic branch on the greater curvature.
The aim of this study was to evaluate association between specific gastric conduit morphology, considering width and length, with its perfusion and the incidence of anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy. We hypothesized that wider conduits would have better perfusion and a lower leak rate than narrow conduits.
Method
Ethical Statements.
All procedures were performed with the approval of the Ethics Committee of the University of Michigan Hospital and in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and its later versions. Informed consent was obtained from all patients before inclusion in the study. The study has been approved through our Institutional Review Board (ID: HUM 00,012,731).
Patients
Patient data for those who received an esophagectomy and gastric conduit reconstruction between July 2015 and December 2021 at a single, high-volume, quaternary hospital was evaluated. Inclusion criteria were all patients with cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEGA) after an open or minimally invasive transhiatal or McKeown esophagectomy and who underwent ICG fluorescence angiography using the SPY Elite system (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) during the operation. Gastric ischemic preconditioning,4 when undertaken, was completed 4–6 weeks prior to definitive surgery, or prior to neoadjuvant therapy. Patients were excluded from analysis if (a) ICG fluorescence angiography had not been performed properly, (b) non-gastric conduit was utilized, and (c) if patients underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Six surgeons performed the procedures, each having performed at least 50 esophagectomies prior to the study period.
Esophagectomy
Patients underwent a transhiatal or McKeown esophagectomy including utilizing open, laparoscopic, thoracoscopic, and robot-assisted approaches. A gastric conduit was created extracorporeally with multiple applications of the Endo GIA 60 mm (Covidien, MA, USA), and the staple suture line was oversewn. The width of the conduit was determined by a surgeon’s preference. The conduit was then evaluated using the SPY Elite system (Stryker, MI, USA) with the conduit placed laid flat outside the abdomen. A concomitant pyloromyotomy was performed in almost all (98%) cases. The gastric conduit was advanced through the posterior mediastinal route and CEGA was performed by an end-to-side partially stapled anastomosis technique with the Endo GIA 30 mm. A jejunostomy tube was routinely placed during operation for postoperative enteral feeding. A nasogastric tube was also routinely placed during operation and discontinued on postoperative day 3 or later depending on the volume of drained fluid.
Quantitative Assessment of Gastric Conduit Perfusion
We have previously reported the feasibility of ICG fluorescence angiography to predict postoperative anastomotic leaks.5 Briefly, after creating a gastric conduit, ICG fluorescence angiography was performed and recorded using the SPY Elite system to evaluate gastric conduit perfusion. We adjusted and standardized the distance and angle of the camera to the gastric conduit using the function of the SPY Elite system in all cases. Five milligrams (2 ml of solution) of ICG followed by 10-ml saline push was administered to the patient and the fluorescence video was recorded for 2 min. Quantitative perfusion was assessed at 5 cm from the tip of the conduit, which is considered an estimated anastomotic site (Fig. 1). As a target region on the conduit is set, the fluorescence curve at that point is automatically drawn and values are provided. To standardize these values, ingress index (INI, arterial inflow) and ingress time (INT, venous outflow) were calculated by determining the percentage of ingress value relative to that at the antrum and the estimated time to reach the peak of the ingress curve, respectively (Fig. 2). Conduit dimensions, width and length, were measured as well: with conduit width defined at the middle of the conduit, and short gastric length as length from the last gastroepiploic branch to the perfusion assessment point.
Data Items
Analyzed variables were patient demographics and characteristics, perfusion study data, and operative factors. Patient demographics included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), diabetes mellitus, chronic heart failure, artery diseases (coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, major vascular disease, and peripheral artery disease), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and smoking history. Patient characteristics included histology, neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy, and gastric ischemic preconditioning. Perfusion study data included conduit width and short gastric length, INI, and INT. Operative factors included surgical approach (transhiatal or McKeown, minimally invasive including laparoscopy and thoracoscopy, and robot-assisted), concomitant pyloromyotomy, postoperative nasogastric tube placement, operation time, postoperative anastomotic leaks, strictures, delayed conduit emptying, and pathological TNM classification according to the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM Classification.6 Anastomotic leaks were diagnosed clinically and by endoscopy or barium fluoroscopy and classified according to the definition stated by the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group.7 Anastomotic stricture was diagnosed by endoscopy or fluoroscopy. Delayed conduit emptying was diagnosed when a surgical or endoscopic intervention was required.
Statistical Analysis
All data were presented as mean (range) or frequency (%). We used the Fisher exact test (and the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons) to compare categorical variables and the Mann–Whitney U test to compare continuous/ordinal variables. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to compare effects of variables on INI and INT. Perfusion pattern was grouped according to ICG fluorescence angiography: good inflow and outflow, good inflow/poor outflow, poor inflow/good outflow, and poor inflow and outflow. Poor inflow and outflow were defined as below the cutoff values of INI and INT, respectively, from each ROC curve. Patients were classified into three groups according to conduit width: narrow conduit (middle of the conduit < 4 cm), medium conduit (≥ 4 cm, < 5 cm), and wide conduit (≥ 5 cm). We compared the leak group with the no-leak group, and the wide conduit group with the narrow conduit group. When comparing the narrow with wide conduit groups, propensity score matching was performed to overcome the bias caused by the difference of patient demographics and characteristics. All variables observed before creating a gastric conduit were included in the regression model to estimate propensity scores: age, sex, BMI, diabetes, chronic heart failure, artery disease, performance status, smoking, chemoradiation therapy, ischemic preconditioning, and surgical procedure. A matching ratio was 1:1 and nearest neighbor method was used (within 0.25 × standard deviation). The differences were considered significant at p < 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.1.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). R markdown for all analyses is available upon request.
Results
Three hundred and fifty-eight patients who underwent an esophagectomy over the study period were evaluated, with 85 patients having developed anastomotic leaks (23.7%). The mean patient age was 65.9 years in the leak group and 64.6 in the no-leak group. There were no significant differences in patient demographics and procedures between the leak and no-leak groups (Table 1). The incidence of anastomotic stricture in the leak group was significantly higher than that in the no-leak group (47.1 vs 14.7%, p < 0.001). The short gastric length was longer in the leak group than the no-leak group (7.8 vs 7.1 cm, p = 0.037). INI was lower (36.3 vs 46.1%, p = 0.002) and INT was longer in the leak group (69.3 vs 56.5 s, p = 0.002). The conduit width did not significantly differ between the groups. Threshold values of INI and INT were obtained from the ROC curves, which were 63.5% (area under the curve = 0.610) and 37.5 s (0.610), respectively. Incidence of anastomotic leak for each perfusion pattern is shown in Table 2. The leak rate in the good inflow and outflow group was significantly lower than that in the poor inflow and outflow group with the Bonferroni correction (7.5 vs 31.0%, p < 0.001).
On multiple linear regression analysis for estimation of INI, older age and lower BMI were risk factors of lower ingress index, and gastric ischemic preconditioning was a factor significantly associated with better perfusion. Wider conduit and smaller distance from the last gastroepiploic branch were better for the gastric conduit perfusion (Table 3). Patients were divided into three groups (narrow, medium, and wide conduit groups) and patient characteristics in each group were obtained (Table 4). The relationship between conduit shape and perfusion pattern is shown in Fig. 3. After applying propensity score matching, 78 patients each from the narrow conduit group and the wide conduit group were selected (Table 5). There was no significant difference in the matching variables. All of the perfusion data (INI, INT, and perfusion pattern) were significantly better in the matched wide conduit group (p < 0.001, 0.004, and < 0.001, respectively). The short gastric length was longer in the matched narrow conduit group compared to the matched wide conduit group (8.1 vs 6.5 cm, p = 0.005). Anastomotic leaks, its severity, strictures, and delayed conduit emptying did not differ between the two matched groups. Since the short gastric length in the matched narrow conduit group was longer, multiple linear regression analysis including the short gastric length and “wide conduit” was performed to remove the effect of the short gastric length. This revealed that “wide conduit” was an independent factor for better INI considering the short gastric length (p = 0.001, Table 6), especially when the perfusion assessment point is 5 cm or more farther from the last gastroepiploic branch, which is visualized in Fig. 4. On the other hand, “wide conduit” was not a significant factor for better INT (p = 0.054).
Discussion
Esophagectomy and reconstruction is one of the most challenging procedures in gastrointestinal surgery and is still associated with high morbidity and mortality compared to other surgeries.8 An anastomotic leak is one of the most important complications following esophagectomy and leads to disability, prolonged hospitalization, increased costs, and higher mortality. Impaired conduit perfusion is a known risk factor of esophagogastric anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy.9 Gastric conduit perfusion has been studied and assessed quantitatively recently with several methods including ICG fluorescence angiography,4,10,11 tissue oxygen measurement,12,13 and thermal imaging.14 However, there are limited data on the relationship between conduit shapes and perfusion.
We addressed an important topic in identifying the ideal gastric conduit shape in terms of its perfusion. Conduit preparation is widely influenced by surgeon judgement, and it remains unclear whether conduit width is a significant confounding factor associated with anastomotic complications. We assessed conduit perfusion quantitatively with ICG fluorescence angiography and grouped patients into three groups according to the width of the conduit and showed that wide conduits have better perfusion than narrow conduits. It is generally felt that the gastric conduit perfusion greatly depends on its length, and it has been reported that poorer perfusion was detected at more peripheral assessment point of the gastric conduit.15,16 Although wide conduits had higher ingress index and shorter ingress time in our study (Table 4 and Fig. 3), these results were obtained without considering conduit length. Therefore, we measured the short gastric length in all the patients, which is a length from the last gastroepiploic branch to the perfusion assessment point (5 cm from the tip). Including short gastric length in multiple linear regression analysis, we removed the effect of length on perfusion and concluded that creating a wide conduit is an independent factor of improved conduit perfusion (Table 6 and Fig. 4). We also showed that the width of the conduit does not matter when the perfusion assessment point is within 5 cm from the last gastroepiploic branch, and that only ingress index depends on the width. Given these results, we propose that a wide conduit be created when the estimated anastomotic site is 5 cm or farther from the last gastroepiploic branch. Our study revealed that wide conduits have better perfusion than narrow conduits, but also revealed that the perfusion is also impacted by the distance from the last gastroepiploic branch.
While some previous studies concluded that wide conduits are superior as they have better perfusion and lower leak rates,2,17 other studies have concluded that narrow conduits are superior as they have adequate length to perform a cervical anastomosis with lower incidence of bile acid reflux.3,18,19 A novel conduit shape has been studied, which is narrow at antrum but is wide at the tip of the conduit to exploit the advantages of the narrow gastric tube and the subtotal gastric tube.20,21 It also has been reported that the width of a gastric conduit has no impact on tissue blood flow and leak rates.22 One of the drawbacks of wide conduits is delayed conduit emptying. We routinely perform a concomitant pyloromyotomy and place a nasogastric tube during esophagectomy to reduce delayed conduit emptying. Wide conduits had a higher rate of emptying than narrow conduit, although there was no significance probably due to a small number of cases.
This study has several limitations. First, the perfusion assessment was performed at 5 cm from the tip of the conduit, which might not be an exact anastomotic site. This could lead to inconsistent relationship between gastric conduit perfusion and anastomotic leaks. Additionally, the perfusion can be affected by other unlisted factors, such as blood loss, volume status, and blood pressure during perfusion assessment. The perfusion can also be impacted by being pulled up through the posterior mediastinal route. Since we have not established perfusion assessment in the neck, this could also be a limitation. Second, the total conduit length was not measured, although enough length to perform CEGA is an advantage of narrow conduits. Finally, this was a single-center study and, therefore, the study results may have lower external validity. Future prospective studies could mark the area of anastomosis and measure total conduit length.
Conclusions
Conduit width is a significant factor contributing to gastric conduit perfusion, especially when the estimated anastomotic site occurs > 5 cm from the last gastroepiploic branch. Wide conduits seem to have better inflow and outflow patterns and creating wider conduits might reduce anastomotic leaks. However, the relationships between conduit shape, conduit perfusion, and anastomotic leaks are not straight forward. More cases will be needed to determine the ideal conduit shape.
References
Zhang W, Yu D, Peng J, Xu J, Wei Y. Gastric-tube versus whole-stomach esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2017;12:e0173416. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173416.
Pierie JP, de Graaf PW, van Vroonhoven TJ, Obertop H. The vascularization of a gastric tube as a substitute for the esophagus is affected by its diameter. Dis Esophagus 1998;11:231-235. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/11.4.231.
Liebermann-Meffert DM, Meier R, Siewert JR. Vascular anatomy of the gastric tube used for esophageal reconstruction. Ann Thorac Surg 1992;54:1110-1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(92)90077-h.
Urschel JD. Ischemic conditioning of the stomach may reduce the incidence of esophagogastric anastomotic leaks complicating esophagectomy: a hypothesis. Dis Esophagus 1997;10:217-219. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/10.3.217.
Ishikawa Y, Breuler C, Chang AC, Lin J, Orringer MB, Lynch WR, Lagisetty KH, Wakeam E, Reddy RM. Quantitative perfusion assessment of gastric conduit with indocyanine green dye to predict anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 2022;35:doab079. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doab079.
Rice TW, Kelsen D, Blackstone EH, Ishwaran H, Patil DT, Bass AJ, Erasmus JJ, Gerdes H, Hofstetter WL. Esophagus and esophagogastric junction. In: Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al. eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th ed. New York: Springer, 2017:185-202.
Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I, Chang AC, Darling GE, DʼJourno XB, Griffin SM, Hölscher AH, Hofstetter WL, Jobe BA, Kitagawa Y, Kucharczuk JC, Law SY, Lerut TE, Maynard N, Pera M, Peters JH, Pramesh CS, Reynolds JV, Smithers BM, van Lanschot JJ. International Consensus on Standardization of Data Collection for Complications Associated With Esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg 2015;262:286-294. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001098.
Raymond DP, Seder CW, Wright CD, Magee MJ, Kosinski AS, Cassivi SD, Grogan EL, Blackmon SH, Allen MS, Park BJ, Burfeind WR, Chang AC, DeCamp MM, Wormuth DW, Fernandez FG, Kozower BD. Predictors of Major Morbidity or Mortality After Resection for Esophageal Cancer: A Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database Risk Adjustment Model. Ann Thorac Surg 2016;102:207-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.04.055.
Zehetner J, DeMeester SR, Alicuben ET, Oh DS, Lipham JC, Hagen JA, DeMeester TR. Intraoperative Assessment of Perfusion of the Gastric Graft and Correlation With Anastomotic Leaks After Esophagectomy. Ann Surg 2015;262:74-78. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000811.
Kitagawa H, Namikawa T, Iwabu J, Yokota K, Uemura S, Munekage M, Hanazaki K. Correlation between indocyanine green visualization time in the gastric tube and postoperative endoscopic assessment of the anastomosis after esophageal surgery. Surg Today 2020;50:1375-1382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-020-02025-3.
Koyanagi K, Ozawa S, Ninomiya Y, Oguma J, Kazuno A, Yatabe K, Higuchi T, Yamamoto M. Association between indocyanine green fluorescence blood flow speed in the gastric conduit wall and superior mesenteric artery calcification: predictive significance for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy. Esophagus 2021;18:248-257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10388-020-00797-8.
Yamaguchi K, Nakajima Y, Matsui T, Okuda M, Okada T, Hoshino A, Tokairin Y, Kawada K, Kawano T, Kinugasa Y. The evaluation of the hemodynamics of a gastric tube in esophagectomy using a new noninvasive blood flow evaluation device utilizing near-infrared spectroscopy. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020;68:841-847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-020-01350-1.
Fujita T, Sato K, Ozaki A, Tomohiro A, Sato T, Hirano Y, Fujiwara H, Yoda Y, Kojima T, Yano T, Daiko H. A novel imaging technology to assess oxygen saturation of the gastric conduit in thoracic esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 2022 Apr 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09199-6.
Nishikawa K, Fujita T, Yuda M, Tanaka Y, Matsumoto A, Tanishima Y, Hanyu N, Yanaga K. Quantitative Assessment of Blood Flow in the Gastric Conduit With Thermal Imaging for Esophageal Reconstruction. Ann Surg 2020;271:1087-1094. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003169.
Boyle NH, Pearce A, Hunter D, Owen WJ, Mason RC. Intraoperative scanning laser Doppler flowmetry in the assessment of gastric tube perfusion during esophageal resection. J Am Coll Surg 1999;188:498-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1072-7515(99)00016-2.
Zehetner J, DeMeester SR, Alicuben ET, Oh DS, Lipham JC, Hagen JA, DeMeester TR. Intraoperative Assessment of Perfusion of the Gastric Graft and Correlation With Anastomotic Leaks After Esophagectomy. Ann Surg 2015;262:74-78. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000811.
Collard JM, Tinton N, Malaise J, Romagnoli R, Otte JB, Kestens PJ. Esophageal replacement: gastric tube or whole stomach? Ann Thorac Surg 1995;60:261-266; discussion 267. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(95)00411-d.
Shu YS, Sun C, Shi WP, Shi HC, Lu SC, Wang K. Tubular stomach or whole stomach for esophagectomy through cervico-thoraco-abdominal approach: a comparative clinical study on anastomotic leakage. Ir J Med Sci 2013;182:477-480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-013-0917-y.
Zhang M, Li Q, Tie HT, Jiang YJ, Wu QC. Methods of reconstruction after esophagectomy on long-term health-related quality of life: a prospective, randomized study of 5-year follow-up. Med Oncol 2015;32:122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-015-0568-0.
Nakajima Y, Kawada K, Tokairin Y, Hoshino A, Okada T. Flexible Gastric Tube: A Novel Gastric Tube Formation Method to Prevent Anastomotic Leakage. Ann Thorac Surg 2020;109:e445-e447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.12.084.
Miyawaki Y, Sato H, Fujiwara N, Sugita H, Sakuramoto S, Okamoto K, Yamaguchi S, Koyama I. Evaluation of the Associations between Gastric Tube Preparation Methods and the Incidence of Cervical Anastomotic Leakage after Esophagectomy for Thoracic Esophageal Cancer. Dig Surg 2020;37:154-162. https://doi.org/10.1159/000499197.
Tabira Y, Sakaguchi T, Kuhara H, Teshima K, Tanaka M, Kawasuji M. The width of a gastric tube has no impact on outcome after esophagectomy. Am J Surg 2004;187:417-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2003.12.008.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
• Yoshitaka Ishikawa: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, resources, data curation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.
• Andrew C. Chang: methodology, investigation, data curation, writing—review and editing.
• Jules Lin: methodology, investigation, data curation, writing—review and editing.
• Mark B. Orringer: methodology, investigation, data curation, writing—review and editing.
• William R. Lynch: methodology, investigation, data curation, writing—review and editing.
• Kiran H. Lagisetty: investigation, resources, writing—review and editing.
• Elliot Wakeam: investigation, resources, writing—review and editing.
• Rishindra M. Reddy: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, supervision, writing—review and editing.
• All authors gave final approval of the submitted manuscript to be published.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Presentation: DDW meeting 2022, San Diego, May 21st, SSAT Oral Quick Shot.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ishikawa, Y., Chang, A.C., Lin, J. et al. Wider Gastric Conduit Morphology Is Associated with Improved Blood Flow During Esophagectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 27, 845–854 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-022-05530-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-022-05530-7