Journal of Chest Surgery

  • 제57권1호
  • /
  • Pages.53-61
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2765-1606(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2765-1614(eISSN)
대한심장혈관흉부외과학회 (The Korean Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Long-Term Outcomes of Colon Conduits in Surgery for Primary Esophageal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison to Gastric Conduits

  • Jae Hoon Kim (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Jae Kwang Yun (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Chan Wook Kim (Department of Colorectal Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Hyeong Ryul Kim (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Yong-Hee Kim (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2023.06.14
  • 심사 : 2023.10.31
  • 발행 : 2024.01.05
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Background: In the treatment of esophageal cancer, a gastric conduit is typically the first choice. However, when the stomach is not a viable option, the usual alternative is a colon conduit. This study compared the long-term surgical outcomes of gastric and colon conduits over the same interval and aimed to identify factors influencing the prognosis. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent esophagectomy followed by reconstruction for primary esophageal cancer between January 2006 and December 2020. Results: The study included 1,545 patients, with a gastric conduit used for 1,429 (92.5%) and a colon conduit for 116 (7.5%). Using propensity-matched analysis, 116 patients were selected from each group for comparison. No significant difference was observed in longterm survival between the gastric and colon conduit groups, irrespective of anastomosis level and pathological stage. A higher proportion of patients in the colon conduit group experienced postoperative complications compared to the gastric conduit group (57.8% vs. 25%, p<0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that age over 65 years, body mass index below 22.0 kg/m2, neoadjuvant therapy, postoperative anastomotic leakage, and renal failure were risk factors for overall survival in patients with a colon conduit. Regarding conduit-related complications, cervical nastomosis was the only significant risk factor among those with a colon conduit. Conclusion: Despite the association of colon conduits with high morbidity rates relative to gastric conduits, the long-term outcomes of colon conduits were acceptable. More consideration should be given perioperatively to the use of a colon conduit, particularly in cases involving cervical anastomosis.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Kang MJ, Won YJ, Lee JJ, et al. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2019. Cancer Res Treat 2022;54:330-44. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2022.128
  2. Rustgi A, El-Serag HB. Esophageal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1472-3. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1500692
  3. Kroll D, Borbely YM, Dislich B, et al. Favourable long-term survival of patients with esophageal cancer treated with extended transhiatal esophagectomy combined with en bloc lymphadenectomy: results from a retrospective observational cohort study. BMC Surg 2020;20:197. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00855-z
  4. Nuytens F, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Meunier B, et al. Five-year survival outcomes of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal cancer: results of the MIRO randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2021;156:323-32. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.7081
  5. Patel DC, Jeffrey Yang CF, et al. Influence of facility volume on long-term survival of patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022;163:1536-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.05.048
  6. Postlethwait RW. Technique for isoperistaltic gastric tube for esophageal bypass. Ann Surg 1979;189:673-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-197906000-00001
  7. Klink CD, Binnebosel M, Schneider M, Ophoff K, Schumpelick V, Jansen M. Operative outcome of colon interposition in the treatment of esophageal cancer: a 20-year experience. Surgery 2010;147:491-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2009.10.045
  8. Wain JC, Wright CD, Kuo EY, et al. Long-segment colon interposition for acquired esophageal disease. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;67:313-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-4975(99)00029-6
  9. Yildirim S, Koksal H, Celayir F, Erdem L, Oner M, Baykan A. Colonic interposition vs. gastric pull-up after total esophagectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2004;8:675-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur.2004.03.007
  10. Cerfolio RJ, Allen MS, Deschamps C, Trastek VF, Pairolero PC. Esophageal replacement by colon interposition. Ann Thorac Surg 1995;59:1382-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(95)00182-k
  11. Davis PA, Law S, Wong J. Colonic interposition after esophagectomy for cancer. Arch Surg 2003;138:303-8. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.138.3.303
  12. Reslinger V, Tranchart H, D'Annunzio E, et al. Esophageal reconstruction by colon interposition after esophagectomy for cancer analysis of current indications, operative outcomes, and long-term survival. J Surg Oncol 2016;113:159-64. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24118
  13. Akutsu T, Fujita T, Kajiyama D, et al. Operative outcomes and longterm survival of patients undergoing colon interposition after esophagectomy for cancer. Thorac Cancer 2022;13:844-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.14332
  14. Schisterman EF, Perkins NJ, Liu A, Bondell H. Optimal cut-point and its corresponding Youden index to discriminate individuals using pooled blood samples. Epidemiology 2005;16:73-81. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000147512.81966.ba
  15. Bakshi A, Sugarbaker DJ, Burt BM. Alternative conduits for esophageal replacement. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6:137-43. https://doi.org/10.21037/acs.2017.03.07
  16. Lee K, Kim HR, Park SI, Kim DK, Kim YH, Choi SH. Surgical outcome of colon interposition in esophageal cancer surgery: analysis of risk factors for conduit-related morbidity. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018;66:384-9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1606828
  17. Kinugasa S, Tachibana M, Yoshimura H, et al. Postoperative pulmonary complications are associated with worse short- and long-term outcomes after extended esophagectomy. J Surg Oncol 2004;88:71-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.20137
  18. Valsangkar N, Salfity HV, Timsina L, Ceppa DP, Ceppa EP, Birdas TJ. Operative time in esophagectomy: does it affect outcomes? Surgery 2018;164:866-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2018.06.020
  19. Peters JH, Kronson JW, Katz M, DeMeester TR. Arterial anatomic considerations in colon interposition for esophageal replacement. Arch Surg 1995;130:858-63. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1995.01430080060009
  20. van Workum F, Klarenbeek BR, Baranov N, Rovers MM, Rosman C. Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus 2020;33:doaa021. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaa021
  21. You J, Zhang H, Li W, et al. Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis in esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surgery 2022;172:575-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2022.03.006