4.6 Article

Surgical outcome of colon interposition by the posterior mediastinal route for thoracic esophageal cancer

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 83, Issue 4, Pages 1273-1278

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.11.049

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. For thoracic esophageal cancer patients with a history of gastrectomy, esophageal reconstruction using segments of colon was often accomplished using the anterior mediastinal route to avoid fatal complications related to colon necrosis. Our aim was to review our experience with reconstruction by the posterior mediastinal route and assess the surgical outcomes. Methods. Between 1989 and August 2006, 34 esophageal cancer patients at Akita University Hospital underwent esophageal reconstruction accomplished by colon interposition by the posterior mediastinal route. Data from these patients were reviewed. Results. Colon conduits consisted of left colon segments in 4 patients and right colon segments in 30. The grafts were supplied with blood by the left colonic artery in 13 patients, the middle colonic artery in 20, and the right colonic artery in 1. The esophagocolic (pharyngocolic) anastomosis was located in the neck in 33 patients (97%) and in the thorax in 1. No patient died during the initial hospital stay. There were no instances of colon necrosis. An anastomotic fistula occurred in 3 patients (9%). Proximal anastomotic strictures occurred in 2 patients (6%). No late graft redundancies resulting in significant dysphagia occurred. Reductions in body weight did not differ from those seen when the gastric tube was used for reconstruction, and alimentary function was good after surgery. The 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 66%, 52%, 48%, and 48%, respectively. Conclusions. Colon interposition by the posterior mediastinal route provides a good outcome and is considered the route of first choice.

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