4.3 Article

Utility of Thermography of Reconstructed Gastric Conduit for Predicting Postoperative Anastomotic Leakage After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

Journal

ANTICANCER RESEARCH
Volume 41, Issue 1, Pages 453-458

Publisher

INT INST ANTICANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14795

Keywords

Gastric conduit; thermography; anastomotic leakage

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found a significant inverse correlation between the temperature of the planned site of gastric conduit anastomosis and anastomotic leakage, with a cutoff point temperature of 27.6 degrees Celsius for predicting anastomotic leakage. Keeping the planned gastric tube anastomosis line at 27.6 degrees Celsius or higher is recommended to reduce the occurrence of anastomotic leakage.
Background and Aim: Anastomotic leakage, the most common major complication after esophagectomy, is an important early postoperative complication that results in reoperation, delayed discharge, and psychological and financial distress. The current study focused on gastric conduit blood flow and investigated the relationship between gastric conduit temperature and anastomotic leakage. Patients and Methods: Between July 2015 and December 2017, a total of 51 patients aged 38 to 84 years who underwent esophagectomy followed by esophagogastric anastomosis with gastric conduit reconstruction were enrolled. Thermography was then used to measure the temperature of the intact stomach and gastric conduit before anastomosis. Results: The temperature of the planned site of gastric conduit anastomosis was significantly inversely correlated with anastomotic leakage, with the receiver operator characteristic curve showing a cutoff point of 27.6 degrees C for predicting anastomotic leakage. Conclusion: The temperature of the planned gastric tube anastomosis line should be kept at 27.6 degrees C or higher to reduce anastomotic leakage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available