Impact of anastomotic leak vs pneumonia on failure to rescue after transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer

被引:0
作者
Giulini, Luca [1 ]
Kemeter, Melissa [1 ]
Farmaki, Filitsa [1 ]
Thumfart, Lucas [1 ]
Huettner, Felix J. [1 ]
Heger, Patrick [1 ]
Koch, Oliver [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Grechenig, Michael [2 ]
Weitzendorfer, Michael [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Emmanuel, Klaus [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Hitzl, Wolfgang [5 ]
Thiel, Konstantin E. [5 ]
Diener, Markus K. [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Dubecz, Attila [3 ,4 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Paracelsus Med Univ Nuremberg, Dept Surg, Nurnberg, Germany
[2] Paracelsus Med Univ Salzburg, Dept Gen Visceral & Thorac Surg, Salzburg, Austria
[3] Paracelsus Med Univ, Nurnberg, Germany
[4] Paracelsus Med Univ, Salzburg, Austria
[5] Paracelsus Med Univ Salzburg, Biostat & Publicat Clin Trial Studies, Machine Learning Res & Innovat Management, Salzburg, Austria
[6] Univ Jena, Dept Surg, Helios Clin Erfurt, Acad Hosp, Erfurt, Germany
关键词
Anastomotic leak; Esophageal cancer; Esophagectomy; Failure to rescue; Pneumonia; MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY; SURGERY; COMPLICATIONS; MORTALITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.gassur.2024.101936
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Data about failure to rescue (FTR) after esophagectomy for cancer and its association with patient and procedure-related risk factors are limited. This study aimed to analyze such aspects, particularly focusing on the effect of pneumonia and anastomotic leak on FTR. Methods: Patients who underwent an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for cancer between 2008 and 2022 in 2 tertiary European centers were prospectively identified. Patients were classified and compared according to the type of operation (open, laparoscopic hybrid, robotic hybrid, minimally invasive, or robotic minimally invasive). FTR was defined as in-hospital death after a major complication. Risk factors for FTR were identified using a univariate model. Mortality after pneumonia and anastomotic leak were calculated and compared between the groups. Results: A total of 708 patients were included. There were 355 open procedures (50.1%), 204 laparoscopic hybrid procedures (28.8%), 121 hybrid robotic procedures (17.1%), 15 standard minimally invasive procedures (2.1%), and 11 robotic minimally invasive procedures (1.6%). The overall morbidity was 60.0%, and the FTR rate was 4.5%. Anastomotic leak, pneumonia, postoperative bleeding, sepsis, pulmonary embolism, arrhythmia, and need for blood transfusion were the risk factors significantly associated with in-hospital mortality (P < .05). There was no particular type of operation significantly associated with mortality (P =.42). Pneumonia- and leak-associated FTR rates did not significantly differ among the groups (P =.99). Conclusion: Anastomotic leak and pneumonia are equally dangerous complications after esophagectomy for cancer. If performed in high-volume centers, hybrid or minimally invasive methods do not seem to negatively affect the FTR rates. Further efforts should be made to improve both tailored-approach and postoperative care. (c) 2024 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]   Understanding Failure to Rescue After Esophagectomy in the United States [J].
Abdelsattar, Zaid M. ;
Habermann, Elizabeth ;
Borah, Bijan J. ;
Moriarty, James P. ;
Rojas, Ricardo L. ;
Blackmon, Shanda H. .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2020, 109 (03) :865-871
[2]   Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial [J].
Biere, Surya S. A. Y. ;
Henegouwen, Mark I. van Berge ;
Maas, Kirsten W. ;
Bonavina, Luigi ;
Rosman, Camiel ;
Roig Garcia, Josep ;
Gisbertz, Suzanne S. ;
Klinkenbijl, Jean H. G. ;
Hollmann, Markus W. ;
de lange, Elly S. M. ;
Bonjer, H. Jaap ;
van der Peet, Donald L. ;
Cuesta, Miguel A. .
LANCET, 2012, 379 (9829) :1887-1892
[3]   Minimally invasive esophagectomy [J].
Bograd, Adam J. ;
Molena, Daniela .
CURRENT PROBLEMS IN SURGERY, 2021, 58 (10)
[4]  
Bray F, 2018, CA-CANCER J CLIN, V68, P394, DOI [10.3322/caac.21492, 10.3322/caac.21609]
[5]   Effects of hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy on major postoperative pulmonary complications [J].
Briez, N. ;
Piessen, G. ;
Torres, F. ;
Lebuffe, G. ;
Triboulet, J. -P. ;
Mariette, C. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2012, 99 (11) :1547-1553
[6]   Failure-to-rescue in patients undergoing surgery for esophageal or gastric cancer [J].
Busweiler, L. A. ;
Henneman, D. ;
Dikken, J. L. ;
Fiocco, M. ;
Henegouwen, M. I. van Berge ;
Wijnhoven, B. P. ;
van Hillegersberg, R. ;
Rosman, C. ;
Wouters, M. W. ;
van Sandick, J. W. .
EJSO, 2017, 43 (10) :1962-1969
[7]   Classification of surgical complications - A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey [J].
Dindo, D ;
Demartines, N ;
Clavien, PA .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2004, 240 (02) :205-213
[8]   A global assessment of the oesophageal adenocarcinoma epidemic [J].
Edgren, Gustaf ;
Adami, Hans-Olov ;
Vainio, Elisabete Weiderpass ;
Nyren, Olof .
GUT, 2013, 62 (10) :1406-1414
[9]   Variation in Hospital Mortality Associated with Inpatient Surgery. [J].
Ghaferi, Amir A. ;
Birkmeyer, John D. ;
Dimick, Justin B. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2009, 361 (14) :1368-1375
[10]   Prognostic Value of Chest-Tube Amylase Versus C-Reactive Protein as Screening Tool for Detection of Early Anastomotic Leaks After Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy [J].
Giulini, Luca ;
Dubecz, Attila ;
Solymosi, Norbert ;
Tank, Julian ;
Renz, Marcus ;
Thumfart, Lucas ;
Stein, Hubert J. .
JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2019, 29 (02) :192-197