Dislocation of the Cervical Anastomosis toward the Mediastinum after McKeown Esophagectomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

SHORT COMMUNICATION
E. A. Toneev, A. L. Charyshkin, A. A. Martynov, A. A. Firstov, L. A. Danilova, E. P. Anokhina, L. R. Zaripov

 
For citation: Toneev EA, Charyshkin AL, Martynov AA, Firstov AA, Danilova LA, Anokhina EP, Zaripov LR. Dislocation of the Cervical Anastomosis toward the Mediastinum after McKeown Esophagectomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Study. International Journal of Biomedicine. 2024;14(2):335-337. doi:10.21103/Article14(2)_ShC
 
Originally published June 5, 2024
 

Abstract: 

Background: This study aimed to assess the frequency of cervical anastomosis dislocation toward the mediastinum after McKeown esophagectomy and the significance of this phenomenon for postoperative complications.
Methods and Results: The study included 82 patients with stage I-III esophageal cancer who underwent surgical intervention using McKeown esophagectomy in a completely open version (thoracotomy, laparotomy, cervicotomy) or hybrid esophagectomy (thoracoscopy on the right, laparotomy, cervicotomy).
After McKeown esophagectomy, dislocation of the cervical anastomosis (DCA) toward the posterior mediastinum was noted in 26.8% of cases. The overall incidence of anastomotic leakage was 18.3%. The groups of patients with and without DCA did not differ statistically in the incidence of anastomotic leakage (P=0.205). Mediastinal complications (mediastinitis, pleural empyema) were observed in 100% (6/6) of cases in the group with DCA and 33.3% (3/9) of cases in the group without DCA (P=0.013). Pulmonary complications (pneumonia, atelectasis) occurred in 5(22.7%) and 8(13.3%) of cases in groups with DCA and without DCA, respectively (P=0.304).
Conclusion: After McKeown esophagectomy, DCA toward the posterior mediastinum was noted in 26.8% of cases. Dislocation of the cervical anastomosis toward the posterior mediastinum does not significantly impact the anastomotic leakage. Mediastinal complications are more common in patients with DCA, but the incidence of pulmonary complications is not associated with this phenomenon.

Keywords: 
esophageal cancer • McKeown esophagectomy • anastomosis dislocation
References: 
  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. Epub 2021 Feb 4. PMID: 33538338.
  2. Kaprin AD, Starinsky VV, Shakhzadova AO. The state of cancer care for the population of Russia in 2020. М.: MNIIOI named after P. A. Herzen. 2021; 252.  (In Russian.)
  3. Rogers JE, Sewastjanow-Silva M, Waters RE, Ajani JA. Esophageal cancer: emerging therapeutics. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2022 Feb;26(2):107-117. doi: 10.1080/14728222.2022.2036718. Epub 2022 Feb 12. PMID: 35119973.
  4. McKeown KC. Total three-stage oesophagectomy for cancer of the oesophagus. Br J Surg. 1976 Apr;63(4):259-62. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800630403. PMID: 1276657.
  5. LEWIS I. The surgical treatment of carcinoma of the oesophagus; with special reference to a new operation for growths of the middle third. Br J Surg. 1946 Jul;34:18-31. doi: 10.1002/bjs.18003413304. PMID: 20994128.
  6. Verstegen MHP, Bouwense SAW, van Workum F, Ten Broek R, Siersema PD, Rovers M, Rosman C. Management of intrathoracic and cervical anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review. World J Emerg Surg. 2019 Apr 4;14:17. doi: 10.1186/s13017-019-0235-4. PMID: 30988695; PMCID: PMC6449949.
  7. Low DE, Kuppusamy MK, Alderson D, Cecconello I, Chang AC, Darling G, Davies A, D'Journo XB, Gisbertz SS, Griffin SM, Hardwick R, Hoelscher A, Hofstetter W, Jobe B, Kitagawa Y, Law S, Mariette C, Maynard N, Morse CR, Nafteux P, Pera M, Pramesh CS, Puig S, Reynolds JV, Schroeder W, Smithers M, Wijnhoven BPL. Benchmarking Complications Associated with Esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2019 Feb;269(2):291-298. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002611. PMID: 29206677.
  8. Nakajima M, Muroi H, Kikuchi M, Fujita J, Ihara K, Nakagawa M, Morita S, Nakamura T, Yamaguchi S, Kojima K. Dislocation of the gastric conduit reconstructed via the posterior mediastinal route is a significant risk factor for anastomotic disorder after McKeown esophagectomy. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2021 Aug 12;6(1):75-82. doi: 10.1002/ags3.12496. PMID: 35106417; PMCID: PMC8786694.
  9. Sakai M, Sohda M, Miyazaki T, Yoshida T, Kumakura Y, Honjo H, Hara K, Yokobori T, Kuwano H. Impact of the Level of Anastomosis on Reflux Esophagitis Following Esophagectomy with Gastric Tube Reconstruction. World J Surg. 2017 Mar;41(3):804-809. doi: 10.1007/s00268-016-3786-5. PMID: 27798723.
  10. Fumagalli U, Baiocchi GL, Celotti A, Parise P, Cossu A, Bonavina L, Bernardi D, de Manzoni G, Weindelmayer J, Verlato G, Santi S, Pallabazzer G, Portolani N, Degiuli M, Reddavid R, de Pascale S. Incidence and treatment of mediastinal leakage after esophagectomy: Insights from the multicenter study on mediastinal leaks. World J Gastroenterol. 2019 Jan 21;25(3):356-366. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i3.356. PMID: 30686903; PMCID: PMC6343094.
  11. Chen C, Ding C, He Y, Guo X. High cervical anastomosis reduces leakage-related complications after a McKeown esophagectomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024 Mar 1;65(3):ezae050. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezae050. PMID: 38341665.
  12. Walsh TN. The Esophagogastric Anastomosis: The Importance of Anchoring Sutures in Reducing Anastomotic Leak Rates. Ann Surg Open. 2023 Feb 1;4(1):e231. doi: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000231. PMID: 37600864; PMCID: PMC10431275.

Download Article
Received November 29, 2023.
Accepted April 11, 2024.
©2024 International Medical Research and Development Corporation.