4.6 Article

Assessment of the blood supply using the indocyanine green fluorescence method and postoperative endoscopic evaluation of anastomosis of the gastric tube during esophagectomy

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5857-6

Keywords

Endoscopic assessment; Indocyanine green; Anastomotic leakage; Esophageal cancer

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Postoperative anastomotic leakage is a severe complication after gastric tube reconstruction during esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of postoperative endoscopic assessment of anastomosis and its correlation with intraoperative indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence assessment of the gastric tube. We retrospectively reviewed 72 consecutive patients who underwent gastric tube reconstruction using the ICG fluorescence method during esophagectomy. Forty-six patients underwent the ICG line-marking method (LMM group; ICG before gastric tube creation). The other 26 underwent the conventional procedure and comprised the control group (ICG after gastric tube creation). Postoperative endoscopic assessment (PEA) of anastomosis was performed 7 days after surgery and results were classified as follows: grade 1 (normal or partial white coat), grade 2 (ulcer comprising less than half the circumference), and grade 3 (ulcer comprising more than half the circumference). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 7 of 72 patients (9.7%). The incidence of anastomotic leakage in the LMM group was tended to be lower than those in the control group (6.5% vs. 15.4%; P = 0.244). Of the 40 patients who underwent PEA, 3 (7.5%) had leakage. PEA grading was significantly associated with anastomotic leakage (P < 0.001). Better intraoperative ICG assessment was significantly associated with better endoscopic assessment grade (P = 0.041). Intraoperative ICG assessment of the gastric tube was associated with PEA grading on anastomosis during esophagectomy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available