Surgery is the primary treatment for esophageal cancer, but the postoperative complication rate remains high. Therefore, it is important to prevent and manage postoperative complications to improve prognosis. Common perioperative complications of esophageal cancer include anastomotic leakage, gastrointestinal tracheal fistula, chylothorax, and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury. Respiratory and circulatory system complications, such as pulmonary infection, are also quite common. These surgery-related complications are independent risk factors for cardiopulmonary complications. Complications, such as long-term anastomotic stenosis, gastroesophageal reflux, and malnutrition are also common after esophageal cancer surgery. By effectively reducing postoperative complications, the morbidity and mortality of patients can be reduced, and their quality of life can be improved.
Humans ; Quality of Life ; Postoperative Complications/prevention & control* ; Anastomotic Leak/etiology* ; Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery* ; Prognosis ; Esophagectomy/adverse effects* ; Digestive System Fistula/surgery* ; Retrospective Studies

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) surgery increases the rate of anal sphincter preservation in patients with ultra-low rectal cancers. However, the anastomotic site of ISR surgery is at risk for structural healing complications such as anastomotic leakage, anastomotic dehiscence, secondary anastomotic stenosis, chronic presacral sinus, rectovaginal fistula, and rectourethral fistula, which can lead to a persistent defunctioning ostomy or a secondary permanent colostomy. This article systematically describes the preoperative high-risk factors and characteristics of anastomotic site structural healing complications after ISR surgery, as well as the management of the anastomotic site during various stages including hospitalization, from discharge to one month after surgery, from one month after surgery to before stoma reversal, and after stoma reversal. This is to provide a clearer understanding of the risks associated with the anastomotic site at different stages of the healing process and to timely detect and actively manage related complications, thereby reducing the rate of permanent colostomy and truly achieving the dual goals of "survival benefit" and "quality of life improvement" in ISR surgery.
Female ; Humans ; Anal Canal/surgery* ; Quality of Life ; Anastomosis, Surgical/adverse effects* ; Anastomotic Leak/etiology* ; Rectal Neoplasms/complications* ; Retrospective Studies

Objective: To retrospectively analyze the risk factors of anastomotic leakage in the neck after esophageal cancer and establish a nomogram prediction model that can accurately predict the occurrence of anastomotic leakage in the neck of the patient. Methods: The study retrospectively analyzed 702 patients who underwent radical esophageal cancer surgery between January 2010 and May 2015 at Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine the risk factors for neck anastomotic leak, and a nomogram model was constructed, internal validation methods were used to evaluate and verify the predictive effectiveness of the nomogram. Results: There were 702 patients in the whole group, 492 in the training group and 210 in the validation group. The incidence of postoperative cervical anastomotic leak was 16.1% (79/492) in 492 patients with esophageal cancer in the training group. Multifactorial analysis revealed calcification of the descending aorta (OR=2.12, 95% CI: 1.14, 3.94, P=0.018), calcification of the celiac artery (OR=2.29, 95% CI: 1.13, 4.64, P=0.022), peripheral vascular disease (OR=5.50, 95% CI: 1.64, 18.40, P=0.006), postoperative ventilator-assisted breathing (OR=5.33, 95% CI: 1.83, 15.56, P=0.002), pleural effusion or septic chest (OR=3.08, 95% CI: 1.11, 8.55, P=0.031), incisional fat liquefaction and infection (OR=3.49, 95% CI: 1.68, 7.27, P=0.001) were independent risk factors for the development of cervical anastomotic leak after esophageal cancer surgery. The results of the nomogram prediction model showed that the consistency indices of the training and external validation groups were 0.73 and 0.74, respectively (P<0.001), suggesting that the prediction model has good predictive efficacy. Conclusion: The nomogram prediction model can intuitively predict the incidence of postoperative cervical anastomotic leakage in patients with high prediction accuracy, which can help provide a clinical basis for preventing cervical anastomotic leak and individualized treatment of patients.
Humans ; Anastomotic Leak/etiology* ; Nomograms ; Retrospective Studies ; Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery* ; Esophagectomy/methods* ; Risk Factors ; Anastomosis, Surgical/adverse effects*

Objective: To retrospectively analyze the risk factors of anastomotic leakage in the neck after esophageal cancer and establish a nomogram prediction model that can accurately predict the occurrence of anastomotic leakage in the neck of the patient. Methods: The study retrospectively analyzed 702 patients who underwent radical esophageal cancer surgery between January 2010 and May 2015 at Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine the risk factors for neck anastomotic leak, and a nomogram model was constructed, internal validation methods were used to evaluate and verify the predictive effectiveness of the nomogram. Results: There were 702 patients in the whole group, 492 in the training group and 210 in the validation group. The incidence of postoperative cervical anastomotic leak was 16.1% (79/492) in 492 patients with esophageal cancer in the training group. Multifactorial analysis revealed calcification of the descending aorta (OR=2.12, 95% CI: 1.14, 3.94, P=0.018), calcification of the celiac artery (OR=2.29, 95% CI: 1.13, 4.64, P=0.022), peripheral vascular disease (OR=5.50, 95% CI: 1.64, 18.40, P=0.006), postoperative ventilator-assisted breathing (OR=5.33, 95% CI: 1.83, 15.56, P=0.002), pleural effusion or septic chest (OR=3.08, 95% CI: 1.11, 8.55, P=0.031), incisional fat liquefaction and infection (OR=3.49, 95% CI: 1.68, 7.27, P=0.001) were independent risk factors for the development of cervical anastomotic leak after esophageal cancer surgery. The results of the nomogram prediction model showed that the consistency indices of the training and external validation groups were 0.73 and 0.74, respectively (P<0.001), suggesting that the prediction model has good predictive efficacy. Conclusion: The nomogram prediction model can intuitively predict the incidence of postoperative cervical anastomotic leakage in patients with high prediction accuracy, which can help provide a clinical basis for preventing cervical anastomotic leak and individualized treatment of patients.
Humans ; Anastomotic Leak/etiology* ; Nomograms ; Retrospective Studies ; Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery* ; Esophagectomy/methods* ; Risk Factors ; Anastomosis, Surgical/adverse effects*

Defunctioning stoma is an effective method to reduce symptomatic anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. It is of concern that about 1 in 5 defunctioning stomas will not be restored, that is, becoming permanent. And that is usually beyond expectation by physicians and patients, which deserves enough attention. The causes are complex, including anastomotic complications, tumor progression, perioperative death, poor anal function and patient willingness. Possible risk factors include symptomatic anastomotic leakage, age, tumor location, neoadjuvant therapy, anal function, TNM stage, ASA score, hospital factors, etc. Those factors may occur in various stages of patient referral such as before neoadjuvant therapy, prior to surgery, intra or post-operative period, and follow-up. Adequate physician-patient communication and shared decision-making, comprehensive tumor and patient function assessment, rational treatment strategy, careful manipulation during operation and good quality control, and meticulous perioperative management are important steps to reduce the permanent stoma. When shared decision-making, patients' needs should be fully considered while unnecessary expectations of anal preservation should be avoided. The risk of perpetuation of defunctioning stoma should be fully informed. Safe operation, especially anastomosis, is the key to avoid permanent stoma. And attention should be paid to the early detection and intervention of postoperative anastomotic stenosis.
Humans ; Anastomotic Leak/etiology* ; Surgical Stomas/adverse effects* ; Rectal Neoplasms/surgery* ; Rectum/surgery* ; Risk Factors ; Postoperative Complications/prevention & control*

In order to prevent and reduce the severity of anastomotic leakage after low rectal cancer surgery, prophylactic ileostomy is often performed by the clinician simultaneously. There are many controversies about prophylactic ileostomy in medicine, such as ileostomy indications, ileostomy complications, ileostomy reversal time, ileostomy reversal method and technique. Based on relevant literature and our own experience, we discussed the timing, method and complications of ileostomy reversal in this article to improve the diagnosis and treatment of ileostomy reversal as well as the life quality of the patients after ileostomy reversal.
Humans ; Ileostomy/methods* ; Anastomosis, Surgical/adverse effects* ; Anastomotic Leak/etiology* ; Rectal Neoplasms/complications* ; Rectum/surgery*

Anastomotic leakage (AL) has always been a persistent issue for colorectal surgeons. It is still difficult to reduce the incidence of AL despite the advances in technology and equipment. With the development of evidence-based medicine, increasing high-risk factors for AL have been identified. How to efficiently and systematically combine and quantify these isolated risk factors to provide a scientific early warning of AL in clinical practices and help surgeons in choosing the optimal prophylactic strategies, is of great significance for reducing the incidence of AL. There are generally two types of AL prediction models in colorectal surgery, including prognostic models (for preoperative and intraoperative AL prediction) and diagnostic models (for early warning and improving the early diagnosis rate of AL). Prophylactic strategies for AL include stabilizing the underlying diseases, improving anemia and hypoalbuminemia, choosing an appropriate operative time window, and emphasizing and improving anastomotic techniques (including choosing an appropriate size of stapler). However, a prophylactic ostomy is still the most common method for surgeons. However, how to reduce the morbidity of complications following prophylactic ostomy and how to avoid the conversion of the prophylactic stoma to permanent stoma need further study.
Humans ; Anastomotic Leak/etiology* ; Colorectal Surgery/adverse effects* ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures/adverse effects* ; Anastomosis, Surgical/methods* ; Risk Factors

Objective: To compare and analyze the perioperative clinical effects of minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (MIE-Ivor-Lewis) and minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (MIE-McKeown). Methods: A total of 147 patients who underwent endoscopic esophageal cancer surgery from April 2018 to August 2019 were selected, including 85 patients undergoing MIE-McKeown surgery and 62 patients undergoing MIE-Ivor-Lewis surgery. The measurement data were expressed as (x±s), the comparison of normally distributed measurement data was performed by independent sample t-test, and the comparison of count data was performed by χ(2) test or Fisher's exact test. Results: The operation time of McKeown (M) group and Ivor-Lewis (IL) group were (219.2±72.4) minutes and (225.8±65.3) minutes. The mediastinal lymph node dissection number of M and IL groups were 13.3±4.8 and 11.6±6.5, respectively. The number of left recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph node dissection were 3.5±1.2 and 3.1±1.4, respectively. The intraoperative blood loss were (178.3±41.3) ml and (163.2±64.1) ml, respectively. The number of patients reoperated for postoperative bleeding were 1 and 0, respectively. The number of patients with postoperative gastric bleeding were 0 and 1, respectively. The postoperative chest tube retention time were (2.8±1.3) days and (3.1±1.2) days, respectively. The number of patients with anastomotic leakage were 7 and 1, respectively. The number of patients with lung infection were 13 and 5, respectively, and with chylothorax were 2 and 1, respectively, without statistically significant difference (P>0.05). The number of patients with hoarseness were 11 and 3, respectively. The total incidence of complication were 41.2% (35/85) and 17.7% (11/62), and the postoperative hospital stay were (14.7±6.5) days and (12.3±2.3) days, with statistical difference (P<0.05). Conclusion: MIE-Ivor-Lewis and MIE-McKeown are safe and effective in treating esophageal cancer, but the complication of MIE-Ivor-Lewis is less than that of MIE-Mckeown, and the perioperative clinical effect of MIE-Ivor-Lewis is better than that of MIE-McKeown.
Anastomotic Leak/etiology* ; Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery* ; Esophagectomy/adverse effects* ; Humans ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/adverse effects* ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology* ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome

The rate of sphincter-preserving surgery for mid-low rectal cancer is increasing, but anastomotic leakage remains to be one of the common serious complications after operation. How to reduce the morbility and mortality of anastomotic leakage is always a hot and difficult point in colorectal surgery. Protective ostomy is a common method to deal with the above problems in clinical practice. However, some problems such as inappropriate stoma and stoma-related complications etc. become the current clinical challenges. The purpose of this consensus focusing on indication of ostomy, clinical value, ostomy skills, prevention of stoma complications, reversion of stoma and stoma nursing aims to provide guidance for the clinical practice of protective ostomy in the operation of mid-low rectal cancer in China.
Anastomosis, Surgical/adverse effects* ; Anastomotic Leak/etiology* ; Consensus ; Humans ; Ostomy/adverse effects* ; Rectal Neoplasms/surgery* ; Risk Factors ; Surgical Stomas

Objective: To compare the short-term and long-term outcomes between transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (laTME) for mid-to-low rectal cancer and to evaluate the learning curve of taTME. Methods: This study was a retrospective cohort study. Firstly, consecutive patients undergoing total mesorectal excision who were registered in the prospective established database of Division of Colorectal Diseases, Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital during July 2014 to June 2020 were recruited. The enrolled patients were divided into taTME and laTME group. The demographic data, clinical characteristics, neoadjuvant treatment, intraoperative and postoperative complications, pathological results and follow-up data were extracted from the database. The primary endpoint was the incidence of anastomotic leakage and the secondary endpoints included the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and the 3-year local recurrence rate. Independent t-test for comparison between groups of normally distributed measures; skewed measures were expressed as M (range). Categorical variables were expressed as examples (%) and the χ(2) or Fisher exact probability was used for comparison between groups. When comparing the incidence of anastomotic leakage, 5 variables including sex, BMI, clinical stage evaluated by MRI, distance from tumor to anal margin evaluated by MRI, and whether receiving neoadjuvant treatment were balanced by propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust confounders. Kaplan-Meier curve and Log-rank test were used to compare the DFS of two groups. Cox proportional hazard model was used to analyze and determine the independent risk factors affecting the DFS of patients with mid-low rectal cancer. Secondly, the data of consecutive patients undergoing taTME performed by the same surgical team (the trananal procedures were performed by the same main surgeon) from February 2017 to March 2021 were separately extracted and analyzed. The multidimensional cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart was used to draw the learning curve of taTME. The outcomes of 'mature' taTME cases through learning curve were compared with laTME cases and the independent risk factors of DFS of 'mature' cases were also analyzed. Results: Two hundred and forty-three patients were eventually enrolled, including 182 undergoing laTME and 61 undergoing taTME. After PSM, both fifty-two patients were in laTME group and taTME group respectively, and patients of these two groups had comparable characteristics in sex, age, BMI, clinical tumor stage, distance from tumor to anal margin by MRI, mesorectal fasciae (MRF) and extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) by MRI and proportion of receiving neoadjuvant treatment. After PSM, as compared to laTME group, taTME group showed significantly longer operation time [(198.4±58.3) min vs. (147.9±47.3) min, t=-4.321, P<0.001], higher ratio of blood loss >100 ml during surgery [17.3% (9/52) vs. 0, P=0.003], higher incidence of anastomotic leakage [26.9% (14/52) vs. 3.8% (2/52), χ(2)=10.636, P=0.001] and higher morbidity of overall postoperative complications [55.8%(29/52) vs. 19.2% (10/52), χ(2)=14.810, P<0.001]. Total harvested lymph nodes and circumferential resection margin involvement were comparable between two groups (both P>0.05). The median follow-up for the whole group was 24 (1 to 72) months, with 4 cases lost, giving a follow-up rate of 98.4% (239/243). The laTME group had significantly better 3-year DFS than taTME group (83.9% vs. 73.0%, P=0.019), while the 3-year local recurrence rate was similar in two groups (1.7% vs. 3.6%, P=0.420). Multivariate analysis showed that and taTME surgery (HR=3.202, 95%CI: 1.592-6.441, P=0.001) the postoperative pathological staging of UICC stage II (HR=13.862, 95%CI:1.810-106.150, P=0.011), stage III (HR=8.705, 95%CI: 1.104-68.670, P=0.040) were independent risk factors for 3-year DFS. Analysis of taTME learning curve revealed that surgeons would cross over the learning stage after performing 28 cases. To compare the two groups excluding the cases within the learning stage, there was no significant difference between two groups after PSM no matter in the incidence of anastomotic leakage [taTME: 6.7%(1/15); laTME: 5.3% (2/38), P=1.000] or overall complications [taTME: 33.3%(5/15), laTME: 26.3%(10/38), P=0.737]. The taTME was still an independent risk factor of 3-year DFS only analyzing patients crossing over the learning stage (HR=5.351, 95%CI:1.666-17.192, P=0.005), and whether crossing over the learning stage was not the independent risk factor of 3-year DFS for mid-low rectal cancer patients undergoing taTME (HR=0.954, 95%CI:0.227-4.017, P=0.949). Conclusions: Compared with conventional laTME, taTME may increase the risk of anastomotic leakage and compromise the oncological outcomes. Performing taTME within the learning stage may significantly increase the risk of postoperative anastomotic leakage.
Anastomotic Leak/etiology* ; Humans ; Laparoscopy/methods* ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology* ; Prognosis ; Prospective Studies ; Rectal Neoplasms/pathology* ; Rectum/surgery* ; Retrospective Studies ; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery/methods* ; Treatment Outcome