PS01.166: COLONIC INTERPOSITION FOR ESOPHAGEAL REPLACEMENT AFTER ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR CANCER: A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE. (14th September 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sabino, Flávio; Guimaraes, Marco; Fernandes, Daniel; Eduardo Pinto, Carlos; Felipe Pinto, Luis; Ribeiro, Luciana; Albagli, Rafael; Hugo Vieira, Vitor; Lopes, Alberto; Da Câmara, Eduardo
• Is Part Of: Diseases of the esophagus. Volume 31(2018)Supplement 1
• Page Start: 96
• Page End: 96
• Publication Date: 2018-09-14
• Subjects: esophageal replacement -- esophagocoloplasty -- Esophageal cancer -- coloplasty; Esophagus -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.32
• DOI: 10.1093/dote/doy089.PS01.166
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-8694

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The method of choice for esophageal replacement after esophagectomy for cancer is the gastric tube. However when the stomach is not available a colon graft interposition can be performed. The purpose of this retrospective study was to review our experience with colon interposition following esophagectomy for cancer and to assess the early surgical outcomes. Methods: We reviewed clinical data from 26 consecutive patients who underwent colon interposition after esophagectomy for cancer between January 1990 and December 2017 at the Brazilian National Cancer Institute. Outcomes were compared with data in international publications on colon interposition. Results: There were 22 (85%) males and 4 females with a mean age of 56 years (range, 28 to 79 years). Indications were adenocarcinoma in 21 (81%) and squamous cell carcinoma in 5 (19%). Seven (30%) patients received neoadjuvant treatment: in 3 cases chemotherapy and in 4 patients chemoradiation. Transhiatal esophagectomy and transthoracic esophagectomy were performed in 21 (81%) and 5 patients, respectively. The mean operative time was 389 min (range 120–660 min). The most common option for colon conduit was the left colon (63%). We performed hand-sewn anastomosis in the neck in all cases. Surgical morbidity was 65%, most commonly due to pulmonary complications. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 13 patients (50%). One case graft necrosis were observed and 9 (35%) reoperations were necessary. In-hospital mortality was 15%. Conclusion: Our results are in line with the literature and demonstrate that colon interposition after esophagectomy is feasible and, despite having a significant morbimortality, appears to be a valuable alternative for the challenging situation where the stomach is not available. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.