Search

Previous assessments suggest that surgical results of paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair were negatively impacted by increasing levels of obesity. A better understanding of the association of obesity on outcomes of PEH repair will support surgeons making evidence-based decisions on the surgical candidacy of individual patients. This single institution retrospective cohort study included 884 consecutive patients with giant PEH undergoing surgical repair between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2020. Preoperative body mass index (BMI) was documented at the time of surgery. Main outcomes included perioperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, major complications, early hernia recurrence, and mortality. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age at surgery was 68.4 (11.1), and 645 (73.0%) were women. Among the 884 patients, 875 had a documented immediate preoperative BMI and were included in the analysis. Mean (SD) BMI was 29.24 (4.91) kg/m2. Increasing BMI was not associated with increased perioperative blood loss (coefficient, 0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.01 to 0.02), prolonged length of stay (coefficient, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.01), increased incidence of recurrent hernia (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95-1.10), or increased major complications (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.82-1.05). The 90-day mortality rate was 0.3%. Furthermore, when compared with the normal weight group, overweight and all levels of obesity were not related to unfavorable outcomes. No association was found between BMI and perioperative outcomes or short-term recurrence in patients undergoing PEH repair. Although preoperative weight loss is advisable, a higher BMI should not preclude or delay surgical management of giant PEH., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a severe complication after esophagectomy. Clinical presentation of AL is diverse and there is large practice variation regarding treatment of AL. This study aimed to explore different AL treatment strategies and their underlying rationale. This mixed-methods study consisted of an international survey among upper gastro-intestinal (GI) surgeons and focus groups with expert upper GI surgeons. The survey included 10 case vignettes and data sources were integrated after separate analysis. The survey was completed by 188 respondents (completion rate 69%) and 6 focus groups were conducted with 20 international experts. Prevention of mortality was the most important goal of primary treatment. Goals of secondary treatment were to promote tissue healing, return to oral feeding and safe hospital discharge. There was substantial variation in the preferred treatment principles (e.g. drainage or defect closure) and modalities (e.g. stent or endoVAC) within different presentations of AL. Patients with local symptoms were treated by supportive means only or by non-surgical drainage and/or defect closure. Drainage was routinely performed in patients with intrathoracic collections and often combined with defect closure. Patients with conduit necrosis were predominantly treated by resection and reconstruction of the anastomosis or by esophageal diversion. This mixed-methods study shows that overall treatment strategies for AL are determined by vitality of the conduit and presence of intrathoracic collections. There is large variation in preferred treatment principles and modalities. Future research may investigate optimal treatment for specific AL presentations and aim to develop consensus-based treatment guidelines for AL after esophagectomy., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.)

Esophageal surgery is historically associated with adverse postoperative outcomes. Selected high-volume centers have previously reported the effect on clinical outcomes following the adoption of a standardized clinical pathway (SCP). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the current literature to document the effect of SCP and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) on esophagectomy outcomes. A literature search was conducted through the main search engines (PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane database) in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. All eligible comparative studies (randomized control trial, prospective, retrospective, and combined) were identified and assessed based on Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies and Jadad quality criteria. Data concerning overall morbidity, early mortality, and length of stay (LOS) were primarily collected and compared. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leaks, pulmonary complications, and readmission rate. Twenty-six articles (including five randomized controlled trials and six prospective trials) were included in the analysis. Overall study quality was moderate and the included studies utilized a variable approach to SCP. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in terms of overall morbidity, postoperative mortality, anastomotic leak, and readmission rates. Significant improvements included pulmonary complications (odds ratios [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.94) and hospital LOS (OR -3.68, 95% CI -4.49 to -2.87). Previous reports of SCP within esophagectomy programs have demonstrated clinical improvements in postoperative pulmonary complications and LOS. Given the high heterogeneity historically demonstrated within SCPs, further improvement in outcomes should be expected following the adoption of standardized ERAS guidelines., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Paraesophageal hiatal hernias (PEHs) are most commonly associated with gastrointestinal symptoms; less widely appreciated is their potentially important influence on respiratory function. We hypothesize that surgical repair of PEH will significantly improve not only gastrointestinal symptoms, but also preoperative dyspnea and spirometry scores. A prospective Institutional Review Board-approved database was used to review all patients undergoing PEH repair from 2000 to 2016. Patients with pre- and postoperative pulmonary function tests assessed by spirometry were included. Postoperative changes in spirometry measurements were compared to PEH size as reflected by the percentage of intrathoracic stomach observed on preoperative contrast studies. Patients were stratified according to improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Patients with >12% ('significant') improvement in FEV1 after surgery were compared to the remaining patient population. In total, 299 patients met the inclusion criteria. Symptomatic improvement in respiratory function was noted in all patients after PEH repair. Age, gender, BMI, presenting symptoms, Charlson comorbidity index as well as preoperative comorbidities did not significantly impact the functional outcome. Spirometry results improved in 80% of the patients, 21% of whom showed an improvement of >20% compared to the preoperative level. 'Significant' improvement in respiratory function was seen in 122 of 299 (41%) patients. Patients presenting with moderate and severe preoperative pulmonary obstruction demonstrated 'significant' improvement in FEV1 in 48% and 40% of cases, respectively. Large PEHs, characterized by a percentage of intrathoracic stomach >75%, was strongly associated with 'significant' improvement in FEV1 (P = 0.001). PEHs can impact subjective and objective respiratory status and surgical repair can result in a significant improvement in dyspnea and pulmonary function score that is independent of preoperative pulmonary disease. Gastric herniation of more than 75% was associated with higher possibility for improvement of pulmonary function tests. Patients with persistent and unexplained dyspnea and coexistent PEH should be assessed by an experienced surgeon for consideration of elective repair., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: The clinical utility of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS) in pulmonary carcinoids staging is unclear. This study aims to determine the role of FDG-PET and SRS in detecting hilar-mediastinal lymph node metastasis from these tumours., Methods: We retrospectively collected the data of 380 patients who underwent lung resection for primary pulmonary carcinoid in seven centres between 2000 and 2015. Patients without nodal sampling ( n  = 78) were excluded. In 302 patients [35% men, median age 58 (interquartile range 47-68) years] the results of preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan, FDG-PET and SRS were analysed and compared to the pathological findings after resection to determine the respective utility of these two nuclear tests., Results: The sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value in detecting N1 and N2 disease were respectively 33% and 46%, 93% and 90%, 88% and 95% for computed-tomography-scan, 38% and 60%, 93% and 95%, 88% and 95% for FDG-PET, 22% and 33%, 95% and 98%, 84% and 87% for SRS. The diagnostic accuracy for N1 and N2 disease of CT scan was not significantly different from that of FDG-PET ( P  =   1.0 and P  =   0.37 for N1 and N2 disease respectively) and of SRS ( P  =   0.47 and P  =   0.35 for N1 and N2 disease respectively). The sensitivity and specificity of these imaging tests were also similar when analysed by typical vs atypical histology., Conclusions: CT scan, FDG-PET and SRS showed similar performance in terms of nodal staging for pulmonary carcinoid. These findings suggest that additional nuclear imaging beyond CT scan is not required as long as a lymphadenectomy or nodal sampling is completed at resection., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)