The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2018
Surgical Management of Post-Esophagectomy Tracheo-Bronchial-Esophageal Fistula.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Balakrishnan Ashwin, Tapias Leonidas, Wright Cameron D, Lanuti Michael X, Gaissert Henning A, Mathisen Douglas J, Muniappan Ashok
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Post-esophagectomy tracheo-bronchial-esophageal fistula (PETEF) most often develops after anastomotic disruption or gastric conduit necrosis. Ideal surgical management and outcomes for this complication are uncertain.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 11 patients undergoing surgical repair of PETEF was performed.
RESULTS: The median time between esophagectomy and surgical repair of PETEF was 61 days (range, 7 days to 28 years). Anastomotic leak or gastric conduit necrosis was responsible for PETEF in 6 patients (54.5%), whereas other causes were erosion of a tracheal appliance (n = 2), gastric conduit staple line erosion (n = 1), anastomotic stricture dilation (n = 1), and recurrent esophageal cancer (n = 1). Membranous airway defects were repaired primarily and buttressed with muscle or omental flaps in 8 patients (72.7%), whereas two (18.2%) were repaired with bio-prosthetic patches and one (9.1%) was repaired with a sleeve resection of the bronchus. Anastomotic and neo-esophageal conduit defects were repaired primarily in 3 patients (27.3%), whereas 7 patients (63.6%) underwent conduit take-down and esophageal or pharyngeal diversion, and 1 patient (9.1%) underwent simultaneous fistula repair and colon interposition. Two patients (18.2%) had recurrent fistulas, with 1 patient dying after second fistula closure and the other was discharged with no further attempt at repair. Three patients (27.3%) died postoperatively. Only 3 patients (27.3%) resumed an oral diet after fistula repair.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment is effective for most patients undergoing operative repair of PETEF, notwithstanding a considerable risk of postoperative morbidity and death. Although fistula repair is life saving and prevents further respiratory deterioration, return to oral alimentation is not ensured.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 11 patients undergoing surgical repair of PETEF was performed.
RESULTS: The median time between esophagectomy and surgical repair of PETEF was 61 days (range, 7 days to 28 years). Anastomotic leak or gastric conduit necrosis was responsible for PETEF in 6 patients (54.5%), whereas other causes were erosion of a tracheal appliance (n = 2), gastric conduit staple line erosion (n = 1), anastomotic stricture dilation (n = 1), and recurrent esophageal cancer (n = 1). Membranous airway defects were repaired primarily and buttressed with muscle or omental flaps in 8 patients (72.7%), whereas two (18.2%) were repaired with bio-prosthetic patches and one (9.1%) was repaired with a sleeve resection of the bronchus. Anastomotic and neo-esophageal conduit defects were repaired primarily in 3 patients (27.3%), whereas 7 patients (63.6%) underwent conduit take-down and esophageal or pharyngeal diversion, and 1 patient (9.1%) underwent simultaneous fistula repair and colon interposition. Two patients (18.2%) had recurrent fistulas, with 1 patient dying after second fistula closure and the other was discharged with no further attempt at repair. Three patients (27.3%) died postoperatively. Only 3 patients (27.3%) resumed an oral diet after fistula repair.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment is effective for most patients undergoing operative repair of PETEF, notwithstanding a considerable risk of postoperative morbidity and death. Although fistula repair is life saving and prevents further respiratory deterioration, return to oral alimentation is not ensured.