Comparison of the Reconstruction Routes after Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.
- Author:
Sung Yeoll LEE
1
;
Kwang Taik KIM
;
Young Ho CHOI
;
Il Hyun KIM
;
Man Jong BAEK
;
Kyung SUN
;
In Sung LEE
;
Hyoung Mook KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Korea University Hospital. ktkim@kuccnx.korea.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
esophageal neoplasm;
Esophageal reconstruction
- MeSH:
Adenocarcinoma;
Anastomotic Leak;
Blood Transfusion;
Cause of Death;
Esophageal Neoplasms*;
Esophagectomy*;
Hemorrhage;
Humans;
Intensive Care Units;
Length of Stay;
Male;
Mortality;
Neoplasm Staging;
Neoplasms, Squamous Cell;
Respiration, Artificial;
Retrospective Studies;
Sepsis
- From:The Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
1999;32(9):806-812
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Selection of reconstruction route in esophageal cancer surgery is based on the patient's status, characteristics of tumor, surgeon's preference and experience. Of the various routes, it has been documented that subcutaneous or substernal route may prolong operation time and may be vulnerable to postoperative respiratory complications. This study was designed to evaluate whether the selection of reconstruction route affects the surgical outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Of 131 patients who have undergone resection and reconstruction for esophageal cancer, posterior mediastinal route(Group I, n=34), substernal route (Group II, n=31), and subcutaneous route(Group III, n=21) were retrospectively reviewed in 86 patients. Results of early operations and morbidities were compared between the groups. RESULT: There was a male prevalence(79 of males vs. 7 of females). There were 81 squamous cell cancers and 5 adenocarcinomas. There were no differences between groups in weight, height, age, cancer staging and location, and in the preoperative anesthetic risk evaluation and pulmonary function test(p=NS). Postoperative mechanical ventilation time was longer in Group I(20.6 hours) than in Group II(7.8 hours) or III(3.4 hours)(p=0.005). Duration of stay in the intensive care unit was prolonged in Group III(6.4 days) compared to Group I (3.9 days) or II(3.1 days)(p=0.043). No differences were noted in the duration of hospital stay between the groups(p=NS). Blood transfusion was needed in 30 out of 34 patients in Group I compared to 14/31 in Group II or 15/21 in Group III(p=0.001). The mean amount of transfusion for each patient was also higher in Group I(3,833 mL) than in Group II(1535 mL) or Group III(1419 mL)(p=0.04), but there was no difference in the inreoperation due to bleeding. Ea ly mortality rate was substantially higher in Group I(17.6%) but the differences between the groups were insignificant(p=NS). Although sepsis was a more prevalent cause of death in Group I, it was not related to anastomotic leak. Other morbidities did not differ between the groups(p=NS). CONCLUSION: In above results show that the reconstruction route does not affect the outcome of esophageal cancer surgery. We believe that the selection of reconstruction route can be based on the surgeon's preference and experience.
