Abstract
Background
As esophagectomy is associated with a considerable complication rate, the aim of this study was to assess the impact of postoperative complications and neoadjuvant treatment on long-term outcome of adenocarcinoma (EAC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) patients.
Methods
Altogether, 134 patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy between 2005 and 2010 with intrathoracic stapler anastomosis were included in the study. Postoperative complications were allocated into three main categories: overall complications, acute anastomotic insufficiency, and pulmonary complications. Data were collected prospectively and reviewed retrospectively for the purpose of this study.
Results
SCC patients suffered significantly more often from overall and pulmonary complications (SCC vs. EAC: overall complications 67 vs. 45 %, p = 0.044; pulmonary complications 56 vs. 34 %, p = 0.049). The anastomotic insufficiency rates did not differ significantly (SCC 11%, EAC 15%, p = 0.69). Long-term survival of EAC and SCC patients was not affected by perioperative (overall/pulmonary) complications or by the occurrence of anastomotic insufficiency. Also, neoadjuvant treatment did not influence the incidence of complications or long-term survival.
Conclusions
This is the first time the patient population of a center experienced with esophageal cancer surgery was assessed for the occurrence of general and esophageal cancer surgery-specific perioperative complications. Our results indicated that these complications did not affect long-term survival of EAC and SCC patients. Our data support the hypothesis that neoadjuvant treatment might not affect the incidence of perioperative complications or long-term survival after treatment of these tumor subtypes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The prognoses of adenocarcinoma (EAC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the esophagus are poor, with an overall 5-year survival rate of 10–13 % [1]. Surgery remains the most important treatment option for patients with early or locally advanced but not metastasized disease. The 5-year survival rate following esophagectomy is approximately 15–40 % [2–4].
Owing to improvements in the management of esophageal cancer patients, the early postoperative mortality and morbidity has decreased in recent years [5, 6], but surgical complications still occur in approximately 10–27 % of cases [7]. Although most authors agree that postoperative complications affect perioperative mortality, the possible long-term impact on overall survival remains unclear [8–12]. Furthermore, the impact of neoadjuvant treatment—which was only recently demonstrated to improve survival in case of a major response [13–18]—on perioperative morbidity is still controversial [9, 10, 14, 19, 20]. However, even as many recent publications included major histologic entities (EAC and SCC) [8, 11, 12, 21, 22] or different surgical approaches [10, 23, 24] in their analysis, proper comparison between complications and evaluation of a potential impact of perioperative complications on long-term outcome remains difficult.
The aim of the current study was to contribute to the discussion regarding the impact of postoperative complications on long-term outcomes by providing a detailed comparison of (overall/pulmonary) complications and anastomotic insufficiency for both tumor types (separately) while comparing only transthoracic esophagectomy with intrathoracic stapler anastomosis at a single, experienced, high-volume center.
Material and methods
Patient selection
Between January 2005 and December 2010, a total of 176 esophageal resections had been performed at our Department of General and Visceral Surgery at the University of Muenster. Among that group, 134 consecutive patients were included in this study who underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal EAC (n = 89, 6 %) or SCC (n = 45, 3 %). Patients with other surgical approaches or diagnoses were excluded from the study to provide a study population that was as homogeneous as possible. Furthermore, patients who died during the hospital stay (in-hospital death) were also excluded as we intended to analyze the effect of complications on long-term outcome.
Clinical data were collected prospectively and then reviewed retrospectively for the current study. In all, 58 % of patients (SCC vs. EAC: 62 vs. 56 %) underwent neoadjuvant treatment consisting of combined radiochemotherapy (5-fluorouracil/cisplatin 50.4 Gy) (SCC) or chemotherapy alone (EAC). Based on the initial clinical and postoperative tumor stage, neoadjuvant-treated patients were allocated into three responder groups: complete responders (cR): ypT0 and ypN0; partial responders (pR): tumor or nodal down-staging in the histologic examination compared to the initial tumor stage; and nonresponders (NR): no change in, or even increased, tumor stage according to the histologic examination compared to the initial tumor stage.
Preoperative staging and evaluation of operability
The preoperative workup included a detailed medical history; physical examination; blood tests for renal/liver function and infection parameters; radiography of the chest; electrocardiography; and anesthesiology consultation. Further examinations were conducted as required (pulmonary function tests in 76 %, cardiac workup in 23 %). The preoperative tumor staging consisted routinely of upper endoscopy/biopsy, ultrasonography, and computed tomography/positron emission tomography (CT/PET-CT) of the chest/abdomen/pelvis to rule out distant metastases. In addition, bronchoscopy/eye-nose-throat consultations were held for 7 % to exclude bronchial invasion or involvement of the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
Standard surgical procedure and postoperative course
An Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy was performed in all 134 patients with en bloc two-field lymphadenectomy via a right transthoracic and abdominal approach. To restore intestinal continuity, a gastric conduit was formed. An end-to-side anastomosis was formed using a circular stapler and placed in the chest (posterior mediastinum). A gastric tube was inserted. The height of the anastomosis resulted from the tumor location (approximately 5 cm above the oral tumor margin). The chest was drained via a tube parallel to the gastric tube ending close to the anastomosis. Duration of surgery and the occurrence of intraoperative complications such as splenic laceration, bleeding from liver veins, left-sided pneumothorax, and lung tissue injury were assessed.
Postoperatively, patients were extubated immediately or at least within the first 12 h and transferred to the intensive care unit. Epidural analgesia was placed preoperatively and continued for the first days. At postoperative day (POD 1), the gastric tube was removed, and enteral nutrition (initially 400 ml drinking) was started with adaptation according to the clinical situation. Patients also received total parenteral nutrition until enteral nutrition was sufficient. The chest tube was removed with decreasing output after approximately 5–7 days. The anastomosis was not checked routinely. If anastomotic leakage was suspected, endoscopy was performed [25].
Postoperative complications
Postoperative complications were subdivided into two subgroups: overall complications and esophageal cancer surgery-specific complications. Overall complications were divided into major, minor, or no overall complications. For details regarding the respective complications that were included in the various categories see Table 1.
Esophageal cancer surgery-specific complications were assessed separately by establishing two additional categories: acute anastomotic insufficiency and pulmonary complications. The acute anastomotic insufficiency group included patients who presented with clinical deterioration, and examinations revealed anastomotic insufficiency with leakage. Allocation to this complication group was based on the clinical aspect—not on the need for operative reintervention as both surgically and conservatively treated anastomotic insufficiencies were included. Patients with other anastomotic complications (e.g. later diagnosed fistula or minor mucosal necrosis of conduit without leakage) were excluded from this category of complications.
Pulmonary complications were divided into no, minor, and major pulmonary complications. For details regarding the respective complications that were included in these categories see Table 1. Respiratory complications were diagnosed by clinical suspicion in combination with adequate radiological examinations and laboratory tests. Additional bronchoscopy was performed to exclude or confirm the presence of a bronchopulmonary fistula.
In case of multiple complications, patients were allocated into an overall complication group or the pulmonary complication group according to the most severe complication. To meet concerns about the clinical relevance of our complicated classification system, we further compared our overall complication categories to the standardized classification of postoperative complications according to the Clavien–Dindo system [26].
Statistical analysis
All data were presented as means with standard deviations unless otherwise stated. Statistical analysis was performed by using χ 2/Fisher’s exact test for categoric variables, Pearson’s correlation for numeric variables, and one-way analysis of variance/Wilcoxon/Kruskal–Wallis test for comparison between numeric and categoric variables as appropriate. Survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Statistical comparisons between groups were performed using the log-rank test. The Cox regression was used for survival analysis of numeric variables. Multivariate analysis (Cox procedure) was performed to prove independence of investigated variables. A value of p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using SPSS 21.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).
Results
Patient characteristics
In total, 176 patients underwent esophageal resection in our center during the study period. The overall 30-day-mortality after esophagectomy was 6.8 %. After excluding patients who did not meet the inclusion criteria, we finally enrolled 134 patients in the study. Detailed characteristics of these 134 patients are shown in Table 2. Regarding the presented data, there were no significant differences between the two tumor entities.
Clinical significance of the “overall complication” classification
To evaluate whether the complication classification as established in our study has clinical significance, we compared our “overall complications” to the standardized classification of postoperative complications according to the Clavien–Dindo system [26]. We found a highly significant correlation between the distribution of overall complications and Clavien–Dindo complications grades 0 to IV for our entire patient population as well as for both histologic subtypes (p < 0.001) (Table 3).
Incidence of postoperative complications
Table 1 presents an overview of the postoperative complications in the entire patient population and the EAC and SCC subgroups. The incidence of anastomotic insufficiency did not differ significantly between the two histologic tumor types. However, SCC patients suffered significantly more often from overall and pulmonary complications (p = 0.044 and p = 0.049, respectively).
Impact of patients’ characteristics on complications
For the entire patient population, the hospital length of stay (LOS) was positively correlated with overall complications (p < 0.001), pulmonary complications (p = 0.003), and occurrence of anastomotic insufficiency (p < 0.001). Additionally, a correlation between hospital LOS and the severity of the overall complications could be demonstrated. Female patients presented significantly fewer pulmonary complications (p = 0.011), and the number of positive lymph nodes was positively associated with increasing incidence of pulmonary complications (p = 0.005). All other patient characteristics did not correlate with the incidence of complications.
In EAC patients, the hospital LOS was again positively correlated with overall complications (p < 0.001), pulmonary complications (p = 0.040), and occurrence of anastomotic insufficiency (p < 0.001). Also, the number of positive lymph nodes was associated with increasing pulmonary complications (p = 0.005). None of the other factors correlated with the incidence of complications.
In SCC patients, postoperative hospital LOS was positively associated with overall complications (p < 0.001) and the appearance of anastomotic insufficiency (p < 0.001). The incidence of complications was not associated with any of the other factors, except for pulmonary complications, which t occurred significantly more often in female patients (p = 0.013).
Impact of patients’ characteristics on survival
To evaluate the impact of demographics on survival, subgroups with fewer than three subjects were excluded from the analysis.
In the entire population, increasing T stage [(y)pT3 vs. (y)pT0: p < 0.001, (y)pT3 vs. (y)pT2: p < 0.001] and N stage [(y)pN2 vs. (y)pN0: p < 0.001, (y)pN2 vs. (y)pN1: p = 0.035] and a positive M stage (p < 0.001) negatively affected long-term overall survival. Also, increasing grades of differentiation were associated with worse short- and long-term survival (p = 0.005). Also, the number of positive lymph nodes was negatively correlated with survival (p < 0.001). Although neoadjuvant treatment (yes or no) did not affect survival (p = 0.389), complete responders showed a significantly better survival (no response vs. complete response cR: p = 0.005).
For EAC patients, T stage [(y)pT3 vs. (y)pT0: p = 0.016, (y)pT3 vs. (y)pT2: p = 0.040], N stage [(y)pN2 vs. (y)pN0: p = 0.001, (y)pN2 vs. (y)pN1: p = 0.010], and positive M stage (p < 0.001) negatively affected long-term survival. Also, the number of positive lymph nodes was negatively correlated with survival (p = 0.001). Neither neoadjuvant treatment nor a complete response had an effect on survival (p = 0.606, p = 0.546, respectively).
For the SCC patients, higher T stage [(y)pT3 vs. (y)pT0: p = 0.035 (y)pT3 vs. (y)pT2: p = 0.030] and N stage [(y)pN2 vs. (y)pN0: p = 0.035, (y)pN2 vs. (y)pN1: p = 0.030], and lower tumor differentiation (p = 0.21) were associated with a worse long-term survival. Also, the number of positive nodes had a negative impact on survival (p = 0.014). Complete responders to neoadjuvant treatment had a significantly better survival (p < 0.001).
Impact of complications on survival
Table 4 shows the median survival after esophageal cancer surgery with respect to complications and treatment. Figure 1 shows the cumulative survival of EAC and SCC patients. Figure 2 (EAC) and Figure 3 (SCC) present the cumulative survival of patients with regard to overall complications. Survival was not different between the EAC and SCC patients. Furthermore, neither overall complications nor pulmonary complications or anastomotic insufficiency significantly affected survival in the entire patient population or in the two subgroups (EAC and SCC).
Multivariate analysis
For multivariate analysis, we included only variables having a statistically significant impact on survival in the univariate analysis and pooled subgroups as appropriate (minimum subgroup size: n = 9). Only the M stage was proven to predict survival independently (Table 5). A subgroup analysis of patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy was not conducted.
Discussion
The reported overall morbidity and the rates of pulmonary complications and anastomotic insufficiency after esophagectomy vary widely (3–84 %, 2–100 %, and 2–25 %, respectively) [8–10, 21–23, 27–30]. Several factors could contribute to this wide range. Several authors did not analyze different histologic subtypes separately [7, 8, 21, 22, 28, 29] or included different surgical approaches (transhiatal versus abdominothoracic versus minimally invasive [8, 10, 12, 23, 24, 29, 31, 32], stapler versus hand-sewn, cervical versus thoracic anastomoses [10, 23]). These factors might affect to varying degrees the complications and outcomes [7, 12, 27, 31–44].
We aimed to create a homogeneous study population by selecting only patients who underwent transthoracic resection with intrathoracic stapler anastomosis. Analyses were performed separately for both tumor types, and complications were assessed using detailed complication categories. The clinical significance of our complication categories was proven by comparing them to the standardized Clavien–Dindo classification [26].
With this approach, we were able to draw four major conclusions from our study: (1) Although, in general, the complication rates of our patients were comparable to those in the current literature, SCC patients experienced pulmonary and overall complications significantly more often than did the EAC patients. (2) Postoperative complications were basically not affected by the patients’ characteristics. Only pulmonary complications were affected by the number of positive lymph nodes (EAC) and the patient’s sex (SCC). (3) We showed that long-term survival was not influenced by overall or pulmonary complications or by anastomotic insufficiency. (4) Neoadjuvant treatment did not have any impact on the incidence of complications or long-term survival (despite the fact that complete responders presented a significantly better outcome than nonresponders).
The most reasonable explanation for the higher complication rate of our SCC patients might lie in the location and aggressiveness of these tumors. As SCC presents with earlier lymphatic spread, a higher location in the esophagus, and a worse prognosis [45], radical resection might be more complicated. Furthermore, classic SCC patient-related factors such as nicotine abuse increase perioperative mortality/morbidity [29, 46].
To date, there is no final agreement as to whether perioperative complications affect long-term outcomes. Whereas some authors found a negative impact of complications on survival in EAC and SCC populations [7, 8, 11, 23], others could not confirm these observations [22, 29, 30]. However, the only two articles investigating only either EAC or SCC patients reported survival to be negatively influenced by perioperative complications in the EAC patients [9] but not in the SCC patients [10]. Our current study assessed for the first time EAC and SCC patients separately in a single experienced high-volume center for treating esophageal cancer surgery. We demonstrated that neither EAC nor SCC patients experienced a negative impact of perioperative complications on long-term outcome. We further found that esophageal cancer surgery-specific complications (anastomotic insufficiency, pulmonary complications) did not affect long-term outcome in our patients, although both factors have been reported to influence outcome to varying degrees [27, 28, 47–49].
Some authors have reported outcomes after neoadjuvant treatment to be strongly affected by an increase in perioperative morbidity/mortality [14, 20, 24] as it might trigger postoperative acute lung injury, cardiac events, or anastomotic leakage or might complicate postoperative weaning or surgical resections due to fibrosis, esophagitis. or infection arising from treatment-related toxicity [19, 30, 50–52]. In contrast, others could not confirm these observations [10, 36, 53]. One study reported that quality of life appeared to be improved after neoadjuvant therapy [54]. Our data seem to support the idea that there is no significantly increased risk for perioperative complications after neoadjuvant therapy. This seems especially important as recent studies suggested that a major response to neoadjuvant treatment positively influenced survival [13–18]. However, based on the limitation of the retrospective design of our study, the final answer to this question needs further evaluation in prospective randomized controlled trials.
The most important limitation of our study is the small sample size, especially in the SCC group. This sample size was caused by the strict patient selection. We believe that this selection resulted in a homogeneous study population, which can avoid the impact of aspects such as histologic tumor type or surgical approach on complications. Another limitation is the exclusion of patients from the analysis who died during their early postoperative course. Perioperative complications affect the early postoperative course and finally determine disease- or treatment-specific mortality. Early postoperative mortality affects the general outcome. However, we did not intend to analyze the effect of perioperative complications on short-term outcomes, as recent studies have already demonstrated a negative impact of surgical [7, 20] and medical [30] complications. We aimed to assess the impact of perioperative complications on long-term outcome. Therefore, we used a common approach as described in the literature [55–57] and excluded in-hospital deaths from our analysis.
Conclusions
Our study contributes to the discussion as to whether perioperative complications affect outcome after esophageal cancer surgery. Our data support the hypothesis that perioperative complications do not influence long-term survival of esophageal cancer patients as, for the first time, we separately assessed EAC and SCC patients. Moreover, our data support the hypothesis that neoadjuvant treatment does not affect perioperative complications or long-term survival.
References
Makowiec F, Baier P, Kulemann B et al (2013) Improved long-term survival after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: influence of epidemiologic shift and neoadjuvant therapy. J Gastrointest Surg 17:1193–1201
Van Soest EM, Dieleman JP, Siersema PD et al (2005) Increasing incidence of Barrett’s oesophagus in the general population. Gut 54:1062–1066
Schneider PM, Baldus SE, Metzger R et al (2005) Histomorphologic tumour regression and lymph node metastases determine prognosis following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy for esophageal cancer: implications for response classification. Ann Surg 242:684–692
Mariette C, Piessen G, Triboulet JP (2007) Therapeutic strategies in oesophageal carcinoma: role of surgery and other modalities. Lancet Oncol 8:545–553
Law S, Wong J (2007) The current management of esophageal cancer. Adv Surg 41:93–119
Schröder W, Bollschweiler E, Kossow C et al (2006) Preoperative risk analysis: a reliable predictor of postoperative outcome after transthoracic esophagectomy? Langenbecks Arch Surg 391:455–460
Rutegard M, Lagergren P, Rouvelas I et al (2012) Intrathoracic anastomotic leakage and mortality after esophageal cancer resection: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol 19:99–103
Hirai T, Yamashita Y, Mukaida H et al (1998) Poor prognosis in esophageal cancer patients with postoperative complications. Surg Today 28:576–579
Ott K, Bader FG, Lordick F et al (2009) Surgical factors influence the outcome after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a consecutive series of 240 patients at an experienced center. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1017–1025
Ferri LE, Law S, Wong KH et al (2006) The influence of technical complications on postoperative outcome and survival after esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 13:557–564
Carrott PW, Markar SR, Kuppusamy MK et al (2012) Accordion severity grading system: assessment of relationship between costs, length of hospital stay, and survival in patients with complications after esophagectomy for cancer. J Am Coll Surg 215:331–336
Ichikawa H, Miyata G, Miyazaki S et al (2012) Esophagectomy using a thoracoscopic approach with an open laparotomic or hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal stage for esophageal cancer: analysis of survival and prognostic factors in 315 patients. Ann Surg 257:873–885
Urschel JD, Vasan H (2003) A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery to surgery alone for resectable esophageal cancer. Am J Surg 185:538–543
Fiorica F, Di Bona D, Schepis F et al (2004) Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut 53:925–930
Gebski V, Burmeister B, Smithers BM, Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group et al (2007) Survival benefits from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy in oesophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 8:226–234
Hölscher AH, Bollschweiler E (2012) Choosing the best treatment for esophageal cancer: criteria for selecting the best multimodal therapy. Recent Results Cancer Res 196:169–177
Schweigert M, Dubecz A, Stein HJ (2013) Oesophageal cancer: an overview. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 10:230–244
Van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, CROSS Group et al (2012) Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 366:2074–2084
Bagheri R, RajabiMashhadi MT, Ghazvini K et al (2012) The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on airway colonization and postoperative respiratory complications in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 14:725–728
Vande Walle C, Ceelen WP, Boterberg T et al (2012) Anastomotic complications after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation are related to radiation dose to the gastric fundus. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:513–519
Griffin SM, Shaw IH, Dresner SM (2002) Early complications after Ivor Lewis subtotal esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy: risk factors and management. J Am Coll Surg 194:285–297
Junemann-Ramirez M, Awan MY, Khan ZM et al (2005) Anastomotic leakage post-esophagogastrectomy for esophageal carcinoma: retrospective analysis of predictive factors, management and influence on long term survival in a high volume centre. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 27:3–7
Rizk NP, Bach PB, Schrag D et al (2004) The impact of complications on outcomes after resection for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 198:42–50
Imdahl A, Schöffel U, Ruf G (2004) Impact of neoadjuvant therapy of perioperative morbidity in patients with esophageal cancer. Am J Surg 187:64–68
Palmes D, Brüwer M, Bader FG, German Advanced Surgical Treatment Study Group et al (2011) Diagnostic evaluation, surgical technique, and perioperative management after esophagectomy: consensus statement of the German Advanced Surgical Treatment Study Group. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396:857–866
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213
Martin RC 2nd, Brennan MF, Jaques DP (2002) Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg 235:803–813
Atkins BZ, Shah AS, Hutcheson KA et al (2004) Reducing hospital morbidity and mortality following esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 78:1170–1176
Sunpaweravong S, Ruangsin S, Laohawiriyakamol S et al (2012) Prediction of major postoperative complications and survival for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma patients. Asian J Surg 35:104–109
D’Annoville T, D’Journo XB, Trousse D et al (2012) Respiratory complications after oesophagectomy for cancer do not affect disease-free survival. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 41:66–73
Mamidanna R, Bottle A, Aylin P et al (2012) Short-term outcomes following open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in England: a population-based national study. Ann Surg 255:197–203
Pennathur A, Zhang J, Chen H et al (2010) The “best operation” for esophageal cancer? Ann Thorac Surg 89:2163–2167
Wormuth JK, Heitmiller RF (2006) Esophageal conduit necrosis. Thorac Surg Clin 16:11–22
De Boer AG, Stalmeier PF, Sprangers MA et al (2002) Transhiatal vs extended transthoracic resection in oesophageal carcinoma: patients’ utilities and treatment preferences. Br J Cancer 86:851–857
Chu KM, Law SY, Fok M et al (1997) A prospective randomized comparison of transhiatal and transthoracic resection for lower-third esophageal carcinoma. Am J Surg 174:320–324
Hulscher JB, van Sandick JW, de Boer AG et al (2002) Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. N Engl J Med 347:1662–1669
Vrouenraets BC, van Lanschot JJ (2006) Extent of surgical resection for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 15:781–791
Omloo JM, Law SY, Launois B et al (2009) Short- and long-term advantages of transhiatal and transthoracic oesophageal cancer resection. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:793–797
Honda M, Kuriyama A, Noma H et al (2013) Hand-sewn versus mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 257:238–248
Bardini R, Asolati M, Ruol A et al (1994) Anastomosis. World J Surg 18:373–378. doi:10.1007/BF00316817
Beitler AL, Urschel JD (1998) Comparison of stapled and hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomoses. Am J Surg 175:337–340
Klink CD, Binnebösel M, Otto J et al (2012) Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis after resection of esophageal cancer: a matched pair analysis of 72 patients in a single center study (abstract). World J Surg Oncol 10:159
Kayani B, Jarral OA, Athanasiou T et al (2012) Should oesophagectomy be performed with cervical or intrathoracic anastomosis? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 14:821–827
Aminian A, Panahi N, Mirsharifi R et al (2011) Predictors and outcome of cervical anastomotic leakage after esophageal cancer surgery. J Cancer Res Ther 7:448–453
Siewert JR, Ott K (2007) Are squamous and adenocarcinomas of the esophagus the same disease? Semin Radiat Oncol 17:38–44
Shiozaki A, Fujiwara H, Okamura H et al (2012) Risk factors for postoperative respiratory complications following esophageal cancer resection. Oncol Lett 3:907–912
Mariette C, Taillier G, Van Seuningen I et al (2004) Factors affecting postoperative course and survival after en bloc resection for esophageal carcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg 78:1177–1183
Patil PK, Patel SG, Mistry RC et al (1992) Cancer of the esophagus: esophagogastric anastomotic leak—a retrospective study of predisposing factors. J Surg Oncol 49:163–167
Martin LW, Swisher SG, Hofstetter W et al (2005) Intrathoracic leaks following esophagectomy are no longer associated with increased mortality. Ann Surg 242:392–399
Zhu SC, Shen WB, Liu ZK et al (2011) Dosimetric and clinical predictors of radiation-induced lung toxicity in esophageal carcinoma. Tumori 97:596–602
Ruol A, Rizzetto C, Castoro C et al (2010) Interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus: does delayed surgery have an impact on outcome? Ann Surg 252:788–796
Monjazeb AM, Blackstock AW (2013) The impact of multimodality therapy of distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas on treatment-related toxicity and complications. Semin Radiat Oncol 23:60–73
Lin FC, Durkin AE, Ferguson MK (2004) Induction therapy does not increase surgical morbidity after esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 78:1783–1789
Scarpa M, Saadeh LM, Fasolo A et al (2013) Health-related quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer: analysis at different steps of the treatment pathway. J Gastrointest Surg 17:421–433
Farid SG, Aldouri A, Morris-Stiff G et al (2010) Correlation between postoperative infective complications and long-term outcomes after hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastasis. Ann Surg 251:91–100
Ito H, Are C, Gonen M et al (2008) Effect of postoperative morbidity on long-term survival after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 247:994–1002
Gomez D, Morris-Stiff G, Wyatt J et al (2008) Surgical technique and systemic inflammation influences long-term disease-free survival following hepatic resection for colorectal metastasis. J Surg Oncol 98:371–376
Conflict of interest
There are no potential or real conflicts of interest for any of the authors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lindner, K., Fritz, M., Haane, C. et al. Postoperative Complications Do Not Affect Long-Term Outcome in Esophageal Cancer Patients. World J Surg 38, 2652–2661 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2590-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2590-3