| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;133:333-338
© 2007 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery
General Thoracic Surgery |
a Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, St Vincent Hospital, Indianapolis, Ind
b Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Methodist Hospital, Indianapolis, Ind.
Read at the Eighty-sixth Annual Meeting of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Philadelphia, Pa, April 29–May 3, 2006.
Received for publication April 25, 2006; revisions received September 26, 2006; accepted for publication October 9, 2006. * Address for reprints: Richard K. Freeman, MD, 8433 Harcourt Rd, Indianapolis, IN 46260. (Email: RFreeman{at}corvascmds.com).
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
METHODS: Over a 30-month period, patients with a postoperative esophageal leak were treated with the Polyflex stent for leak occlusion. Leak occlusion was confirmed by means of esophagraphy. Patients were followed until their stent was removed and their esophageal leak had resolved.
RESULTS: Twenty-one patients had 27 stents placed for leak occlusion after esophagectomy (n = 5), esophageal perforation (n = 5), surgical (n = 4) or endoscopic (n = 2) antireflux procedure, and esophageal diverticulectomy (n = 3) or myotomy (n = 2). The mean interval between surgical intervention and stent placement was 12 ± 8 days (range, 3–31 days). Occlusion of the leak occurred in 20 patients. One patient experienced a dehiscence of the surgical esophageal perforation repair requiring esophageal diversion. Stent migration requiring repositioning (n = 3) or replacement (n = 4) occurred in 5 (24%) patients. Twenty (95%) stents were removed without residual leak (mean, 51 ± 43 days; range, 15–175 days). One patient had a stricture after stent removal that required endoscopic dilatation. One patient in this series died.
CONCLUSIONS: The Polyflex esophageal stent is an effective method for occluding a postoperative esophageal leak. It rapidly eliminates contamination of the mediastinum, pleura, and peritoneum; allows oral hydration and nutrition; and is easily removable. These stents also offer an appealing alternative to traditional esophageal diversion and subsequent reconstruction in patients with a persistent esophageal leak.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
Leak after esophageal anastomosis or perforation repair can be a challenge for the surgeon. Traditional therapy for a symptomatic postoperative esophageal fistula has been operative repair or, if unsuccessful, esophageal diversion. Such treatment prolongs hospitalization and significantly delays oral hydration and nutrition. In the case of subsequent unsuccessful repairs, esophageal diversion commits the patient to further surgical intervention to re-establish foregut continuity.
Endoluminal esophageal stents have been available for many years and have been used to palliate unresectable esophageal malignancies with dysphagia. Unfortunately, the characteristics of the material of which stents were made caused them to be difficult to insert and remove and resulted in significant complications, such as stent migration, fistula formation or enlargement, and bleeding. However, since esophageal stents made of materials that make them easier to place and remove, are significantly more flexible, and exert less radial force and remain occlusive have become available, recent reports of their use to treat symptomatic esophageal anastomotic leak after cancer resection have been published.1,2
This investigation reviews our experience treating recalcitrant postoperative esophageal fistulae endoscopically using an occlusive, silicon-coated esophageal stent (Polyflex; Boston Scientific, Natick, Mass).
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
All esophageal stents were placed in the operating room by a thoracic surgeon using general endotracheal anesthesia and fluoroscopy after flexible esophagoscopy. Adequate drainage of infected areas was also simultaneously achieved. Fistula occlusion was confirmed by means of contrast esophagraphy a minimum of 48 hours after stent placement or when the patient was able to participate in the examination. In the absence of a continued leak, patients who were able were begun on a "soft mechanical" diet without bread or meat and advanced as tolerated to a "postgrastrectomy" diet.
It was the intention to remove all patients’ esophageal stents after a sufficient amount of time to allow permanent fistula closure. This was individualized based on the fistula cause, anatomic location, nutritional status of the patient, and resolution of all associated infectious or septic parameters, including the resolution of any associated organ failure, but was not less than 14 days after initial stent placement. Stent removal again was carried out in the operating room after achievement of general anesthesia. Flexible esophagoscopy was performed before and after stent removal as well. An esophagraphy was again performed 24 hours after stent removal to exclude recurrent leak. Patients were followed until their esophageal fistula had resolved, their stent had been removed, and they were tolerating oral nutrition. All patients were assessed at least 1 month after stent removal for dysphagia. Continuous data for this investigation are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation of the mean, except where otherwise indicated.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
|
All stent placements occurred without intraoperative complications. One patient experienced the dehiscence of the esophageal perforation repair 2 days after stent placement and required operative repair. Other associated morbidities included respiratory failure (n = 5), pneumonia (n = 2), and deep venous thrombosis (n = 1), and 1 patient required celiotomy for an enterocutaneous fistula thought to be related to the original abdominal operation (Table 3). One (5%) patient had an esophageal stricture after stent removal that required endoscopic dilatation. One (5%) patient died from the rupture of an infected thoracic aortic graft after the reoperative repair of an aortic dissection complicated by esophageal perforation. This patient’s esophageal injury was recognized and repaired by means of primary closure of the esophagus and pedicled muscle interposition at the time of the aortic dissection repair. When the leak recurred, endoluminal esophageal stent placement was performed. This patient’s stent had been removed before death.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
described his experience with prostheses made of ivory and silver. In more recent times, Mousseau and Celestin, and Atkinson and Ferguson have all developed devices for esophageal intubation.4-6 Difficulty with insertion, migration, and extraction, however, limited the use of these prostheses to the palliation of unresectable malignant conditions of the esophagus, with rare exceptions.7
Taking advantage of the technology used to make endovascular stents, self-expanding metallic esophageal stents became available in the 1990s. These stents could be inserted with flexible esophagoscopy, required significantly less esophageal dilatation, had a lower rate of migration, and provided excellent palliation for malignant esophageal strictures.8 Subsequently, occlusive self-expanding esophageal stents were used to treat patients with malignant tracheoesophageal fistulae, as well as esophageal obstruction.9 The silicone covering decreased tumor ingrowth while forming an occlusive seal in the case of a fistula. However, there continued to be reluctance to place these prostheses in the esophagus of a patient for conditions other than palliative therapy for a malignancy because of the potential esophageal damage associated with extraction.
The recent ability to produce a plastic prosthesis coated with silicone has resulted in an esophageal stent that has a distinct advantage over previous versions. Ease of insertion, the requirement for minimal esophageal dilation, and the formation of an occlusive seal within the lumen of the esophagus are all similar to the self-expanding metallic stents. The distinct advantage of these nonmetallic endoprostheses is their unique ability to be extracted without damaging the esophagus. This has led some investigators to implant these stents in select patients as a temporary measure to treat an esophageal leak or fistula after esophagectomy.10
Patients who experience a continued leak or have an esophageal fistula after initial repair of an esophageal perforation or anastomotic dehiscence will most often experience a prolonged hospital course, realize a significant delay in their ability to take oral nutrition and hydration, and have the potential to experience localized infectious complications, as well as sepsis. The traditional treatment for these patients has been a reoperative attempt at repair or esophageal diversion with or without esophagectomy. On the basis of our anecdotal experiences using an occlusive, silicone-coated esophageal stent (Polyflex), we hypothesized that temporary esophageal stent placement could effectively treat some postoperative esophageal fistulae without the need for further esophageal operations.
This investigation reviews our experiences with a large group of patients treated in this manner. We found that endoluminal esophageal stent placement was easily accomplished. This resulted in the rapid closure of postoperative esophageal fistulae, eliminating this source of infection/sepsis in all but 1 patient in this series. Although some patients could not attempt oral nutrition because of comorbid processes, patients who could otherwise tolerate an oral diet began one significantly sooner than would be expected after operative fistula repair. Finally, although difficult to quantify, it would appear that the 20 patients who were successfully treated with esophageal stent placement should have benefited from a reduction in the potential morbidity associated with another major surgical procedure. Similarly, a small percentage of these 20 patients could have required esophageal diversion with subsequent reconstruction, neither of which was realized because of endoluminal therapy.
These results are in keeping with 2 smaller series of patients with a postoperative esophageal anastomotic leak who received esophageal stent placement instead of operative repair.11,12 However, the current series is unique in both its size and the treatment algorithm used. Both previously reported series each contained significantly fewer patients than the series presented in this investigation. Furthermore, neither of the cited series treated a postoperative esophageal fistula definitively with surgical intervention, as was our standard, followed by endoluminal esophageal stent placement only if the fistula recurred. This strategy reflects the likely preference of the majority of thoracic surgeons and identifies a viable alternative to further surgical intervention.
The migration of these stents does minimally detract from their use. In this review 7 stents migrated in 5 patients, requiring repositioning or replacement. This compares favorably with other series in which esophageal stents have been used to palliate malignant strictures.13 However, we have recognized that this can be minimized by slightly oversizing the diameter and significantly oversizing the length of the stent when possible. Migration in our series was also more common in the proximal cervical esophagus and at the gastroesophageal junction, as would be expected because of the decreased surface area of the esophagus available to seat the stent.
Esophageal stricture formation after stent removal also occurred in 1 (5%) patient in this investigation. This has been reported previously and appears to occur most often if the leak being treated is at the site of an esophagogastrostomy. In the series by Langer and colleagues,2 as well as in our experience, such strictures are easily treated without further surgical intervention and should not detract significantly from the use of these stents.
Similarly important to the success of treating patients with a postoperative esophageal fistula by using an esophageal stent is to achieve the same goals one would entertain if operative repair was performed. In addition to fistula occlusion, these include eliminating sources of infection/sepsis, establishing reliable access for enteral nutrition, and minimizing postoperative morbidity. In this series patients required an average of 1.4 simultaneous procedures to accomplish these goals. We believe these associated procedures were integral to whatever success we might have achieved. In our opinion this global approach to these patients can only be provided with the involvement of and preferably under the direction of a thoracic surgeon.
Although it would appear that endoluminal esophageal stent placement for postoperative esophageal fistulae could have some advantages over further attempts at operative repair, this investigation has some weaknesses. Although representing the largest number of postoperative esophageal fistulae treated in this manner in the current literature, a patient population of 21 remains a small number, even for a relatively uncommon condition. Furthermore, no attempt was made to compare endoluminal therapy with reoperative therapy in either a prospective or retrospective fashion. It was believed that such a comparison would be of minimal benefit because of the significant variation in patients’ comorbidities at the time the fistula was recognized, as well as the varied nature of their underlying esophageal diseases.
In conclusion, this series demonstrates the effectiveness of an occlusive esophageal stent in treating patients with recalcitrant postoperative esophageal fistulae. Endoluminal stent placement provides rapid fistula closure, eliminating soilage of the mediastinum, pleura and, peritoneum; allows patients to begin oral intake within 48 hours of stent placement; and eliminates the need for further operations in the vast majority of patients. Stent placement also offers an appealing alternative to reoperative repair and especially esophageal diversion and subsequent reconstruction. Proper patient selection and stent sizing should minimize the principle weakness of this treatment strategy: stent migration. The initial success demonstrated by this review might hold promise for treating selected postoperative esophageal fistulae, as well as iatrogenic esophageal perforations, with endoluminal techniques.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Related Article
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. K. Freeman, J. M. Van Woerkom, A. Vyverberg, and A. J. Ascioti Esophageal stent placement for the treatment of spontaneous esophageal perforations. Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2009; 88(1): 194 - 198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. C. Kucharczuk Invited commentary. Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2009; 88(1): 199 - 199. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. T. Nguyen, B. A. Mailey, M. W. Hinojosa, and Ken Chang Natural Orifice Management of Anastomotic Leaks After Minimally Invasive Esophagogastrectomy Surgical Innovation, December 1, 2008; 15(4): 249 - 252. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Zisis, A. Guillin, L. Heyries, P. Lienne, X.-B. D'Journo, C. Doddoli, R. Giudicelli, and P.-A. Thomas Stent placement in the management of oesophageal leaks Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 2008; 33(3): 451 - 456. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. K. Freeman, J. M. Van Woerkom, and A. J. Ascioti Esophageal Stent Placement for the Treatment of Iatrogenic Intrathoracic Esophageal Perforation Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2007; 83(6): 2003 - 2008. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |
