4.0 Article

Prevalence of anastomotic leak and the impact of indocyanine green fluorescein imaging for evaluating blood flow in the gastric conduit following esophageal cancer surgery

期刊

ESOPHAGUS
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 351-359

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10388-017-0585-5

关键词

Esophagogastric anastomosis; Indocyanine green fluorescein imaging; Anastomotic leak

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anastomotic leak (AL) following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer (EC) remains an important cause of prolonged hospitalization and impaired quality of life. Recently, indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescein imaging has been used to evaluate the gastric conduit blood supply during EC surgery. Although several factors have been reported to be associated with AL, no studies have evaluated the relationships between risk factors for AL, including ICG fluorescein imaging. The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk factors associated with AL following esophagectomy and to evaluate the impact of ICG fluorescein imaging of the gastric conduit during EC surgery. One hundred and twenty patients undergoing esophagectomy with esophagogastric anastomosis for EC were enrolled in this retrospective study. Clinicopathological factors, preoperative laboratory variables, and surgical factors, including ICG fluorescence imaging, were analyzed to determine their association with AL. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the impact of each of these factors on the incidence of AL. Among the 120 patients enrolled in the study, 10 (8.3%) developed AL. Univariate analysis demonstrated an increased risk of AL in patients with a high-neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (p = 0.0500) and in patients who did not undergo ICG fluorescein imaging (p = 0.0057). Multivariate analysis revealed that the absence of ICG imaging was an independent risk factor for AL (p = 0.0098). Using ICG fluorescein imaging to evaluate blood flow in the gastric conduit might decrease the incidence of AL following EC surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据