C-reactive protein and drain amylase: their utility in ruling out anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most feared complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. We investigated the role of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and drain amylase levels in the early detection of AL. This is a retrospective study of 193 patients who underwent a minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis procedure between January 2017 and October 2021. Mean CRP and median drain amylase levels between patients with and without AL were compared during the first five postoperative days (POD). ROC curves on POD 3, 4 and 5 were plotted to calculate cut-off values for CRP. In 30 of the 193 patients (16%), AL was diagnosed with a median time to diagnosis of 9 days. Mean CRP was significantly higher in patients with AL on POD 3, 4 and 5. Cut-off values of 59, 110 and 106 mg/L had a high sensitivity of 93%, 90% and 90% on POD 3, 4 and 5. No difference in median drain amylase levels was observed. CRP levels with a cut-off point of 110 mg/L on POD 4 do not improve earlier detection of AL, but have a high sensitivity for excluding AL. The value of drain amylase in the first 5 days after surgery is limited.</p

Focus on extralevator perineal dissection in supine position for low rectal cancer has led to better quality of surgery and oncologic outcome.

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: After abdominoperineal excision (APE), the presence of tumor cells in the circumferential resection margin (R1) and iatrogenic tumor perforations are still frequent and result in an increased rate of local recurrences. In this study, a standardized supine APE with an increased focus on the perineal dissection (sPPD) is compared to the customary supine APE. METHODS: From 2000 to 2010, a total of 246 patients underwent APE for rectal cancer (sPPD and customary supine APE). All patients were staged with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and received neoadjuvant treatment (n = 203) when margins were involved or threatened (cT3 + and T4). As a result of a quality improvement program in 2006, the surgical technique was modified: it became standardized, emphasis was placed on the perineal dissection, and pelvic dissection was limited to avoid false routes when following the total mesorectal excision planes deep into the pelvis. RESULTS: Overall, the percentage of involved circumferential resection margins (CRMs) was 10%. In the period before introducing sPPD, the R1 percentages for cT0-3 and cT4 tumors were 6.8 and 30.2%, compared to 2.2 and 5.7% after introduction of sPPD (P = 0.001). Risk factors for R1 resection were preoperative T4 tumors (14.9%, P = 0.011), tumor perforation (33.3%, P = 0.002), fistulating tumors (35.7%, P = 0.002), mucus-producing tumors (23.1%, P = 0.006), or bulky tumors (66.7%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The objective of surgical treatment of low rectal cancer is to obtain negative resection margins and subsequently reduce the risk of local recurrence. A combination of the appropriate preoperative treatment and standardized surgical technique such as sPPD can achieve this goal.1 maart 201

Treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer : large, collaborative, observational TENTACLE cohort study

Background: Anastomotic leak is a severe complication after oesophagectomy. Anastomotic leak has diverse clinical manifestations and the optimal treatment strategy is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of treatment strategies for different manifestations of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed in 71 centres worldwide and included patients with anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy (2011-2019). Different primary treatment strategies were compared for three different anastomotic leak manifestations: interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (that is no intrathoracic collections; well perfused conduit); drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations; and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders. Results: Of 1508 patients with anastomotic leak, 28.2 per cent (425 patients) had local manifestations, 36.3 per cent (548 patients) had intrathoracic manifestations, 9.6 per cent (145 patients) had conduit ischaemia/necrosis, 17.5 per cent (264 patients) were allocated after multiple imputation, and 8.4 per cent (126 patients) were excluded. After propensity score matching, no statistically significant differences in 90-day mortality were found regarding interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (risk difference 3.2 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.8 to 8.2 per cent), drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations (risk difference 5.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.2 to 12.8 per cent), and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis (risk difference 0.1 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -21.4 to 1.6 per cent). In general, less morbidity was found after less extensive primary treatment strategies. Conclusion: Less extensive primary treatment of anastomotic leak was associated with less morbidity. A less extensive primary treatment approach may potentially be considered for anastomotic leak. Future studies are needed to confirm current findings and guide optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectom

Erratum to “Practice variation in anastomotic leak after esophagectomy:Unravelling differences in failure to rescue (vol 49, pg 974, 2023)

The publisher regrets that when the article was published the following collaboration authors from the “TENTACLE – Esophagus collaborative group” appeared incorrectly in the main author list due to a technical error: Writing Committee, Joos Heisterkamp, Fatih Polat, Jeroen Schouten, Pritam Singh, Study collaborators. This has now been corrected. The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused

Practice variation in anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: Unravelling differences in failure to rescue

Introduction: Failure to rescue (FTR) is an important outcome measure after esophagectomy and reflects mortality after postoperative complications. Differences in FTR have been associated with hospital resection volume. However, insight into how centers manage complications and achieve their outcomes is lacking. Anastomotic leak (AL) is a main contributor to FTR. This study aimed to assess differences in FTR after AL between centers, and to identify factors that explain these differences. Methods: TENTACLE – Esophagus is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study, which included 1509 patients with AL after esophagectomy. Differences in FTR were assessed between low-volume (<20 resections), middle-volume (20–60 resections) and high-volume centers (≥60 resections). Mediation analysis was performed using logistic regression, including possible mediators for FTR: case-mix, hospital resources, leak severity and treatment. Results: FTR after AL was 11.7%. After adjustment for confounders, FTR was lower in high-volume vs. low-volume (OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.2–0.8), but not versus middle-volume centers (OR 0.67, 95%CI 0.5–1.0). After mediation analysis, differences in FTR were found to be explained by lower leak severity, lower secondary ICU readmission rate and higher availability of therapeutic modalities in high-volume centers. No statistically significant direct effect of hospital volume was found: high-volume vs. low-volume 0.86 (95%CI 0.4–1.7), high-volume vs. middle-volume OR 0.86 (95%CI 0.5–1.4). Conclusion: Lower FTR in high-volume compared with low-volume centers was explained by lower leak severity, less secondary ICU readmissions and higher availability of therapeutic modalities. To reduce FTR after AL, future studies should investigate effective strategies to reduce leak severity and prevent secondary ICU readmission